Talk:Holodomor

Comments made after the talk page got blanked and no one noticed

Not sure how to do this properly and preserve everyone's comments, so here are the comments made after the talk page was blanked:

POV

I found an interesting article dated June 15, 2009 from the Jewish Telegraph Agency newspaper website titled "Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case". Referring to the Ukraine, the article says "The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish." This has never been discussed in the west. Although you occasioanally see the expression Jewish- Bolshevik, its usually ascribed to NAZIS or anti-semites. But now the country the Ukraine wants to conduct a criminal case against the perpetrators of this atrocity and the charge is that the perpetrators were Jewish. Should it be pointed out that the perpetrators of this atrocity against Ukrainians were Jewish in the Wikipedia article. Since Jews made up a small percentage of the Ukraimian population this appears to be a significant fact. The article says Ukrainian Jews oppose the trial. Here is the Article.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/06/15/1005888/jewish-group-objects-to-holodomor-lawsuit

Pgg804 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think this material belongs to Holodomor in modern politics. There is quite a lot of different interests group trying to use the human catastrophe to their advantage or protesting the others using it, etc. All those discussions are interesting but unless it is absolutely important it should not go to the main article Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Newly added information is a rehash of old POV claims. Feel free to discuss. I will revert them wholesale unless someone provides necessary RS and proves these claims are legit. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

Hello,

Thanks for doing this. I am new to Wikipedia and hope this will finally allow us to find a consensus on this matter.

I see how people talk here and will try to keep it in a similar manner, short and to the point.

So, a little preambula:

1) People turn to Wikipedia not because it takes a side, but because, as much as possible, it gives the information as it is. I often come here when looking at historical articles, simply because I know it will give both sides of the story.

2) For some reason, most people who claim Holodomor was a genocide (and indeed, those who claim :otherwise), talk only about "Ukraine" as a country. This is the wrong approach, as the original :claims about Holodomor as a genocide talked about a "genocide against Ukrainians", not "... of :Ukraine". In our age, this is hard to understand and often people get confused: when you say :"genocide against Ukrainians", people often think it means against the country of Ukraine, but :that is not true, and it is not where the number of dead come from.

...

Thus, when talking about Holodomor, it is important to keep in mind both point one and point two. :Point one is important so the claims of those who think it was a genocide are not the only ones :heard, for example; and point two is important when talking about the magnitude of the actual :event. Because, don't forget, the number of dead has nothing to do with it actually being a :genocide.

In regards to point one, then whether or not it was a genocide is relatively well attended to on :the page. Both arguements are given. But I sincerely feel there was a problem in regards to the :number of deaths.

Writing something such as "scholarly claims" list the dead at around 2, or 3 million, where as :"some claims" or "outdated claims" list the number of dead at 7 or 10 million does not give a :neutral bystander the same view on all numbers. They will naturally see "scholarly claims" and :think they are the only correct numbers.

So, now, some sources regarding the "higher" versions of the numbers and the (clearly overlooked) :view most people who claim it as a genocide have that it was not only in Ukraine, but against :Ukrainians.

I apologize if I don't source it correctly, I think the point will be clear, though.

http://www.history.vn.ua/book/history3/37.html

[1]

^ Here, researchers who claim it to be a genocide write, regarding the number of dead, that "... :(based on the information), around 6-7 million dead seems to be the most propable (search "Цифра :6—7 млн. чоловік мабуть найбільше достовірна" in http://www.history.vn.ua/book/history3/37.html).

They also write that "... starvation did not only affect Ukraine, but also highly Ukrainian :populated areas in Kazakhstan, lower Povolzha (written as Нижнє Поволжя, I'm not sure what that :is in English?), the northern Caucuses, Crimea, and Kurschyna (English?).

From this source, it is written that in many regions of these are outside of Ukraine, during :the time, Ukrainians were the majority. That out of those killed here during Holodomor, :Ukrainians were approximately 70% of those killed. In some areas, they even constituted 87% of :the population(http://www.kavkaz center.com/ukr/content/2011/01/09/17142.shtml, look up "87% :(Темрюцький район)...", and also "...а загалом у сільській місцевості, яка була найбільше :охоплена Голодомором, українці становили 66,6%, то і відсоток українців серед жертв досягав :близько 70%". They state that as a whole, Ukrainians were 66.6% of the population in this area, :and 70% of the dead.

Keep in mind, of course, that the numbers regaring 3 or 4 million, from Kulhytsky or Snyder :mention that number being killed in Ukraine as a country, not Ukrainians overall.

Here, it is stated that outside of Ukraine, approximately three million Ukrainians were killed: :http://bibl.kma.mk.ua/pdf/istgolod/26/11.pdf

Here http://www.drohobych.com.ua/2010/11/26/natsionalizm-i-holodomor-v-ukrajini/, through looking :at similar things to what Kulchytsky looked at regarding change in population, it is stated that :7.5 million Ukrainians (inside of Ukraine) died.

Thus, the beginning of the article could look better if it said something like "... against :Ukrainians, primarily in the Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainian inhabited areas of the USSR", as writing :"in the Ukrainian SSR" can impliy, again, that it was against Ukraine, not Ukrainians, no?

Don't forget also, from the early 1900s, Ukrainian women had an average of 8 children :(eprints.zu.edu.ua/4189/1/демогр2009.pdf), with there being a very high infant mortality rate, :which made up to 2 of every 8 children die). Families of 12 children were also not uncommon. :Combine this with the population of Ukraine getting smaller by over 5 million from the late 1920s :untill the mid 1930s, and you see why even claims of 7 million inside of Ukraine are not exactly :"not scholarly".

Interesting also, both for giving more creditility to numbers such as 7 or 10 million killed, is :this population survey that the USSR said was from 1931: http://duhvoli.com.ua/resource/images/photogallery/20110517134131.jpg

It says as a whole, Ukrainians in the USSR were 81.1 million. That would mean they were the :majority in the USSR, with Russians being 77.7 million, and Belarussians being 4.7 million. :Again, this in itself does not proove anything, but it is a subjective factor that adds :credibility to similar claims and, would be interesting to include in the article. Here is :another source for that same information: http://ukranews.com/uk/news/ukraine/2011/05/19/43847. :By the end of Holodomor, Ukrainians were around 39 million. This doesn't mean that mant were :killed, but it could mean that because of Ukrainianization by the Soviet government that stopped, :less people considered themselves Ukrainian.

Here, Mr. Serhiyschuk and Mr. Borysenko, who have PHDs in history, mention 7-10 million killed. :http://kbulkin.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/borysenko-serhijchuk-holodomor/.

Thus, I think, to finally solve any debate that exists, it is important to give claims from both :sides of the spectrum (low, and high death numbers) an equal position (i.e. either write :something such as "it is hard to determine due to a lack of records, but somewhere between 4 and :7 million) or just leaving it as it is now, but giving both views in a manner people will look at :as exactly that: two views that are both relatively credible, not one credible and one uncredible. I.e., it isn't exactly the "flat earth" example here. There are lower numbers which have credability, and higher numbers which have credability. As for the 2.4 million, I cannot :find any sources for it, and most things I do find on the lower spectrum seem to be around 3 :million (in Ukraine). Most sources I have listed also say not 7.5, but 7 million.

This way, wikipedia maintains it's function as being the place people look when they are :introduced to a topic, before further researching it. It's fair to list both high and low :estimates, in otherwords, but not only high estimates, or only low estimates.

---

^ About the death toll.

Regarding the 20 million killed in Holodomor, the problem is that it is not possible to find this :source anywhere else: it is only available through an archive, and every other version of his :speech in Congress does not mention that. It very well could have been a mistranslation. He might :have been talking about repressions, and then mentioned Holodomor, and said 20 million. Or, he :meant Holodomor as not only 32-33, but also the other, smaller "Holodomors", after WW2 for :example. Again, no where, do any sources say 20 million people were killed in Holodomor. They say :as a whole, during the USSR (20-30 million is a common number there, for example, here :http://www.galinfo.com.ua/news/87888.html). I just don't think one mistranslated (possibly) quote :that does not exist anywhere else is enough to write something in wikipedia...

Ljudyna (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --User:Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC). Ljudyna (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --User:Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". That means giving greatest weight to the views most commonly held by scholars. If you disagree with that policy then you are welcome to try and change it, but in the meantime, it must be followed here. TFD (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. That there are views most commonly held by scholars must be represented, even if scholars differ in their views.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Also, I, again, am not experienced at this: I would ask anyone who can to include this in the :article. It's very interesting, I'm surprised it's not here already: http://h.ua/story/153952/. :It is a document from 1933, during the Holodomor, where it is written: "cause of death: :Ukrainian" about a boy who died from hunger. Here is a photo: http://fotohost.jampo.com.ua/images/ed14f978e23ce59f5929a2537c551cc9.jpg (the "cause of death: Ukrainian" thing is at the bottom, the :final thing written).Ljudyna (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --User:Ljudyna

As 4.5 million is included in 5 million ( together with Kuban) and 7.5 million is included in "up to 10 million (some claims)" I have removed the unsubstantiated edits by Ljudyna. (Igny (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

As 7.5 million is a claim that is a scholarly estimate, it has been included. It is, indeed, very important to include all modern and scholarly estimates. Unsubstantiated edits by Igny have been removed. Ljudyna (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna

Re "7.5 million". From the source you cited

1932-33 років у цілому завдав шкоди – 7,5 мільйонів жертв

That is 7.5 million total victims from Soviet famine of 1932–1933. Where do they claim 7.5 from Holodomor?? Besides, Drobovich's claims do not recent research or scholarly estimate make. (Igny (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Some comments.

1. Let me remind you that per our policy, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.", therefore, numerous references to Ukrainian newspapers or to some questionable web sites are hardly appropriate here.
2. The sources cited by Ljudyna do not create an impression that they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", so, in addition to the fact that they are not English language sources, they are poorer quality sources, so they should not be used in this article.
3. I have been surprised to see that the attempts were made to downplay really reliable sources. Thus, the numbers presented by Wheatcroft have been described as "early estimates", although in actuality in his new works he did not reconsider his earlier figures. Interestingly, in his recent work he came to a conclusion that during the Soviet period the mortality was steadily and pronouncedly decreasing, so despite of few short surges of mortality, the overall effect of the Communist rule on the life expectancy was positive. (Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960. Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60)
4. Re Kuban. We must be consistent. If we want to write about Holodomor as the action directed against the Ukrainians as the nation, then the article should be re-written, because this theory is a minority views, or the Ukrainian nationalist POV, and should be represented as such. However, if we write about Holodomor as a part of Soviet Famine that took place within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR, Kuban figures must be excluded.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My two cents:

There are certain issues at hand, and I will give them in detail. Because not everyone has time to read substantially large amounts of information, I will list them, then explain them, and then provide a brief summary.

As a bystander, and keeping in mind the large amount of people that hold each respective view, the following instances in the article seem rather ambiguous:

1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;

2)The view that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" on the main page;

3) Writing that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary".

and;

4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".

It is these four areas where the primary issues lie, and in that, the last remaining major disagreements in this articole.

Note, of course, that due to the partiality that exists between the questions of whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide, and the way both views are provided, editing of the article for such purposes is no longer an issue. A significant number of people held, and hold both of those views, and, rightfully so, both are represented.

All historical events should be able to be freely researched, and no one should be forbidden to ask questions regarding any historical event. Restrictions on the information flow regarding historical events takes away much of their credibility.

It was very correctly noted by Paul Siebert that those who view the Holodomor as a genocide do not view the events in Ukraine, and the deaths exclusively from starvation as that which the genocide is limited to. As such, and wary that many bystanders will come to this page searching for information regarding the genocidal view, it seems of cardinal importance to include the number of dead both for the (often) non-genocidal view (taking hunger deaths from Ukraine), and the genocidal view (taking all Ukrainian deaths from the entire USSR). It is precisely here where a key difference lies in the interpretation of the Holodomor.

In the same sense, it could also be misleading to write the "Ukrainian SSR" as the place the events took place. By any standard, perhaps, if an agreement cannot be found, it could be more accurate to make two articles all together: regarding the genocidal view, and the non-genocidal views respectively.

Important also, of course, is that in this same article Kulchytsky himself writes, regarding the data from censuses, that "... the demographic data were opened only in late 1980s". As such, it is not wise to completely ignore the conclusions reached by international commissions in both 1988, and 1990.

So, to address the issues mentioned above:

1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;

- The primary problem here is that it gives an impression that all scholars think it is only 2.4-5 million (thus, taking into account only the deaths in Ukraine, and thus, not viewing it as a genocide), where as many scholars, such as Mr. Serhiychuk, or Mr. Borysenko - who both have PHDs in history - view it as being 7-10 million. So while technically, some scholars do estimate it to be 2.4 - 5 million, and some claims to estimate it to be 10 million, by this logic it is also true that "7-10 million is a scholarly estimate, where as 2.4 - 5 million are just 'some claims'".

A large part of this is the debate regarding the international commissions on the Holodomor, primarily, the ones from 1988, and 1990, which some scholars disagree with. Yet, not all modern scholars disagree with it, and this is very important to note. This can be noted here http://www.anti-crime.org/articles.php?ni=15080&print, here http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/955022.html, and here http://kbulkin.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/borysenko-serhijchuk-holodomor/. I should note, that these sources are from the Radio Free Europe website, which is funded by the United States, and helps spread democracy to countries such as Iran. The site "maidan" says similar things http://eng.maidanua.org/node/792, as does this Kiev newspaper http://www.day.kiev.ua/290619?idsource=171003&mainlang=eng.

Regarding Radio Free Europe: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty

2, and 3): "...Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" (2), and "... The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary." (3).

- Again, while some older estimates, that are higher than some lower estimates that exist today are sometimes cited in political commentary, much the same, older estimates, that are lower than higher estimates that exist today are also cited in political commentary. In as such, it is not possible to call this statement partial, unless it were to read something similar to "...the older, lower estimates are still often cited in political commentary, and the lower, higher estimates are also still citied in political commentary". Older numbers of 2 million, for example, are sometimes mentioned in place of higher numbers such as 3.3 million that are given by professor Snyder.

What I mean is that the way this is written gives an impression that only old, 50 year old inquiries believe up to 7-10 million died, and today, all scholars believe this to be false.

This in itself is not entirely true, either, because professor Komarnytsky, at his lecture at the University of Cambridge in Britain, also (with sources) agrees with the 7-10 million claim, saying that "... up to 8 or 9 million were killed in Ukraine and Kuban", and that "... there were more victims in Kuban than in Russia as a whole, because Kuban was more population dense". That scholar, contrary to what is written in this article by scholar Kulchytsky, says that Ukraine's population did not decrease a few hundre thousand, but by over 6 million. And when you keep in mind, as mentioned above, that the Ukrainian woman had an average of 8 children during the early 20th century, such a decline speaks for quite a bit.

In the same sense, and for the same reasons, it is not possible to say that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million", because recent research has also shown that it there could have been up to 9 million deaths in Ukraine itself.

4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".

- Our policy is that "...If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...", it "...does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not...", and "regardless of whether you can prove it or not".

Keep in mind, that Yuschenko, who was who is claimed to have said this, does not speak English, and his original speech was in Ukrainian. It is not possible to find any source that confirms he said this, and it could very well have been a mistranslation. In fact, there is not even a source that shows 20 million Ukrainian dead in Holodomor anywhere on the internet, in any language. I would say, then, that such a view constitutes a viewpoint "...held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...". Or, in any case, the wording should be more accurate, and reflect the one source that does exist, and read not "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", but rather "...even twenty million was once cited in a political speech".

Brief summary:

1) It is not wise to write "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left, because, in just the same sense, you could write 10 million (scholarly estimates) 2.4 - 5 million (some claims);

2, 3) It is incorrect to write that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" and that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary", because recent research also shows the estimates can be as high as 7-10 million, and, in the same sense, "older, lower estimates are still often citied in political commentary";

and,

4) It is not in practice with our referencing policies to write that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", because it is an incredibly fringe view, that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet - on a translated and archived page, that itself is no longer available.

What I propose, then, is simply to include the works of all scholars, and all views that are held by massive amounts of people. Again, not everyone going to this page views the Holodomor as a genocide, which is why they will find more substantiality in claims like 2.4, or 4.5 million. In the same manner, not everyone going to this page agrees that Holodomor is not a genocide, and as such, it is important to include the numbers from not only other parts of the USSR, but first and formost by historians and scholars who believe it to be a genocide. The article, because there are differing opinions, must be written from a neutral view, as only claiming that 7-10 million Ukrainians were killed in a genocide will be just as wrong to many people as claiming that 2-4 million Ukrainians were killed due to economic policies.

Finally, do not forget that an exact number will never be reached, because there is simply a lack of documentation. This means that absolutely every claim regarding Holodomor deaths will be based largely on assumption. This means that the views of every scholar, provided that a large mass actually believe what they say, have an equal right to be mentioned.

...

PS: To Igny: Govorju na velykom i moguchom, esli nado, mozhna pysat' na nom. I tak mne kazhetsja, shcho pochti nikto, krome nas, etovo chytat ne budet'. Davajte vmeste nakonets reshat etu problemu. Ljudyna (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna

We do not provide equal weight to all scholarship but "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". You might want to read about why some scholars have come up with the higher numbers. TFD (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a very clear policy regarding this, namely to be cautious, regarding sources, where "...proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources. I'm sure there exist many presumptions as to why some scholars have higher numbers, but on the same grounds, I'm sure there also exists presumptions as to why some scholars have come up with lower numbers. In addition, I agree with everything you've said, especially regarding the principle to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". As I was saying to Igny (and I do apoligize for not writing in English), I think it's time we finally solve this, similarly to how we solved the genocidal question in this same article. Ljudyna (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna

We prefer English sources because they are more accessible to readers, and for no other reason. In some cases foreign language sources are preferable. But in order to provide more weight to these sources you would have to show that scholars give them that weight. TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing numbers from 1988/1990 findings by some unnamed commissions is exactly what "citing older higher estimates in political rhetoric" means. That does not constitute recent research in no meaningful way. While we all value scholarly achievements by the historians you cite, their remarks do not contain any of the analysis of the figures or sources and could be summed up by "some historians are also citing older estimates". What you are engaged here is an OR and attributing too much weight to a particular POV. (Igny (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

It is not up to us whether or not these commissions are trustworthy, it is up to scholars, who study this material. I was under the impression that you understood Russian (and Ukrainian), and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It is indeed a shame you have not answered the gross majority of what I wrote, and such behaviour is disappointing in a circle of discussion like this.

I am merely a neutral bystander, and I think my distrust of claims regaring 20 million Ukrainians being killed can attest to that. I am still waiting for credible sources regarding that, by the way, sources that do not constitute a "strong minority".

The biggest of these international commissions can be read about here: bibl.kma.mk.ua/pdf/istgolod/26/11.pdf. It was lead by an international team of lawyers, including, but not limited to, Dr. D. Draper - former judge during the Nurnberg trials; John Humphries - professor from Canada, also a former director of the UN Human Rights division, and many others. It was officially presented in 1992 in Kyiv. In short, their conclusions were that between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians were killed. Using, of course, democratic data - democratic data no less trustworthy then the democratic data used by historians who do not feel the Holodomor was a genocide.

Some scholars today agree with their findings, and some scholars do not.

There are also some major, major discrepencies. Kulchytsky claimed the population declined by less than 500 000, yet in the same sources listed above, and as noted by professor Komarnytsky at the University of Cambridge (in 2009, I should note), other sources (and again, demographic sources, that are official, and no less trustworthy than any other sources used) appear to show it declined by up to 5 million. And again, I repeat, that the average Ukrainian woman back then had 8 children. They had 8 children, yet it declined by 5 million. I don't think I need to comment.

It is fine to feel that some sources are more credible, but I am confident that the sources provided by scholars who view Holodomor as a genocide, and thus take the number of dead not only for Ukraine, but for Ukrainians as a whole, are most certainly credible enough to if not be presented equally, then to at least be presented in a greater manner than before.

I also await your answer towards my proposition of including this: http://h.ua/story/153952/. I have hopes that you too are a neutral bystander, and as someone more experienced with Wikipedia, you could explain that that photo is the death certificate of a little boy killed during the time of Holodomor, it is written "cause of death: Ukrainian". This, of course, does not prove anything about numbers killed or genocide, as he could have been attacked by a racist neighbour, for example. But I think it does have enough to do with the Holodomor to be included.

Here is the photo: http://fotohost.jampo.com.ua/images/ed14f978e23ce59f5929a2537c551cc9.jpg

Again, I hope we can find a diplomatic style solution for this, and include all credible sources. If not equally, then most certainly in a more objective manner than before. Surely, this is fair. We must, in all costs, avoid any reflection of POVs in the article. Ljudyna (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna

You are referring to the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine (1983) which concluded that there were between 4.5 and 7 million victims, which is already reflected in the article. However, we would need later scholarship to confirm whether these conclusions have stood the test of time. TFD (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we don't. If someone has an RS contesting the figures, that source can be added, but the idea that every source one does not like must be reconfirmed is not found in any WP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Collect? We need to establish the degree of acceptance of opinions added to the article. It is not a case of "one does not like". I have no idea how accepted the views of a report written before the archives were available to scholars is, and expect that it should be determined. Subsequent scholarship may have revised the figures upwards or downwards. TFD (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Conquest's opinion on the genocidal nature of Holodomor.

The section devoted to the genocide question starts with the following statement:

"[Robert Conquest]] believed that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin'scollectivization program in the Soviet Union. "

This statement is false, because it contradicts to the present position of this scholar on that issue. His position has been explained by Davies and Wheatcroft on the page 441 of their book (Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. (2004) The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 – 1933). They refer to the personal letter from Robert Conquest. They repeated their explanation in their more recent work (Davies, R. W. and Wheatcroft, Stephen G.(2006) 'Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A reply to Ellman ', Europe-Asia Studies, 58: 4, 625 — 633), where they describe the position of Conquest (as well as their own position) as follows:

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that ‘Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘‘Soviet interest’’ other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it’"

It is necessary to note, that the same ideas can be found in recent interviews obtained from Conquest himself, however, the peer-reviewed publication where the views of this scholar have been described is a more reliable source. Based on that, I do not see why do we need to start the section with the opinion Conquest had in past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What Davies and Wheatcroft state of Conquest's opinion is insufficient in my view. It would be better to source something directly published by Conquest himself, do you have such a cite. Otherwise the best that can be made is something along the lines of:

"Robert Conquest believed that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin's collectivization program in the Soviet Union. Davies and Wheatcroft allege Conquest clarified his view in 2003... (etc.). "

--Martin (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No. D&W are not journalists but reputable scholars, and they transmitted the Conquest's views quite carefully. Moreover, they provided the quote from the Conquest's letter, so we have no reason to doubt in the correctness of these words, and to claim they "allege" something is simply insulting. In scientific community, people cannot distort other's point of view, otherwise that would be an end of their own carrier.

Moreover, I recall I read some Conquest's interview where he expressed the same ideas, however, D&W seem to be more reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

Especially, again, when there are modern scholars who do agree with the findings of that international commission.

Also, it is not only their findings, but other modern findings that contradict the findings of scholars with lower death tolls, findings that appear to support a higher death toll. Such as the population decreasing not by 500 000, but by almost 6 million - and again, this is despite the average Ukrainian woman having 8 (!) children. And while this does not prove anything 100% (and, finally, because there is no hard evidence for even one person being killed, it is all speculation and how you judge demographics, no other theories prove anything, either).

By the way, Paul, I would ask you to include the death certificate photo, as I do not know how to do that. I see the additions you have made have been objective, and I think it will make the article more interesting. The photo itself is not in English, but anyone who knows Ukrainian, or can read cyrllic knows what it says.

I really think it is necessairy that we prepare our own propositions, as if we are writing a "resolution", thus if someone edits the article again, we'll all be able to stop it and put it back. Again, I repeat: because both credible views (regarding if or if it is not a genocide) are there, there is no more editing for that.

Finally, do not forget that Conquest was not the only person who thought it was genocide in the early days. I think this quote would also be very good to include, especially because it is English:

This is a quote from a communist leader speaking in the Kharkiv region in 1934:

"Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence."

- V. Danilov et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD. T. 3, kn. 2. Moscow 2004. P. 572

Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD means something like "Soviet history through the eyes of OGPU_NKVD".

Sadly, I do not know how to include quotes and add new references. But from a neutral point of view, it would seem to be better to include both such quotes, and also the works of historians such as Snyder and Wheatcroft.

By the way, this is nothing to do even with Communism, because Ukrainians lived much better, especially during the later years of the USSR, than they have during 19 years of independence (and corruption). Ljudyna (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Ljudyna

(edit conflict)The death certificate photo is a primary source, and its usage is regulated by WP:PSTS. In addition, this image is hardly in PD, so the image must be supplemented by FUR, which will hardly be convincing in this case, taking into account our non-free media policy. Moreover, the web site you took it from does not seem to be a reliable source, so I do not think we need to add it.

You also have to separate the figures from interpretations, so there sources that give high estimates for demographic losses do not necessarily support the idea that Holodomor was genocide, and vise versa.

Regarding the modification of this section, the section is a complete mess, so we need to re-organise the material at least (I tried to fix it, however, more work is needed).

And, finally, you totally ignore the fact that, despite short-term welfare and mortality crises, the overall welfare improvement (and a sharp decreas of mortality) during 1920-60 is a well established fact, and that tendency, which was a world trend in XX century was especially prominent in the USSR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize sincerely, as I thought simply listing the source as an example would suffice.

The source is from the official website of the Sumy State Archive, from Ukraine. If it matters, Sumy region is run by the pro-Russian Party of the Regions, and the Communist Party of Ukraine has over 5%, which is among it's best results in Ukraine. The site I listed prior was simply one of the hundreds with the photo. Searching "причина смерті: українець" on Google images gives many similar photos, maybe, you could find one of better quality.

Here is the source: http://www.state-gov.sumy.ua/docs/golodomor/golodomor.html

The photo itself can be found by typing "причина смерті: українець" on google images. Normally, dozens of results appear (of different quality).

It, of course, does not prove anything regarding genocide or casualties. But seeing as the article is about the Holodomor of 1932-33, which some people claim was targeting Ukrainians, and this 1933 death certificate shows the cause of death of a boy in a region that was highly affected by these policies or genocide (depending how you look at it) as being Ukrainian, it would appear it could have a place in the article.

Similar is the quote from the Soviet leader from 1934. Again, a quote of one leader means absolutely nothing, and in the same sense, a quote from one scholar about Conquest means no more: but they are interesting side-details that are well-known to many, and surely they have a place in any neutral article regarding these events.

Regarding what you wrote about the USSR, then it appears from your English you are from the west. As such, I suspect you have been fed propaganda regarding Communism and the USSR for a long time. I don't know you, or any of your political views, but let me tell you, that a strong amount of what you have been taught is not true. The living conditions in the USSR, in many cases, were even superior to that of western countries. The crime rate was almost non-existant, absolutely everyone played sports, there was almost no fast-food, police were even largely unarmed (this tradition has remained, to some extent, in Ukraine and Russia to this day. You know, when "democracy" came, and many police started to become armed, the people called the belts they began wearing around their waists "democratizators". To this day, that slang-word is wide spread. "They used their democratizators to calm the crowd", etc. There are many sources for this, if you want to enter it anywhere). The Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, for example, in the 1980s was the 10th most developed country in the world! People helped each other, no one locked their doors, all the star atheletes lived not in a seperate world but walked the same streets and wore similar clothes to the other people, literacy was practically universal, and the USSR had the most hospital beds available of any country in the world. In fact, Ukrainian Communists during 1932-33 heavily protested what is claimed Stalin was doing. There were, of course, many problems with the USSR. Many problems. But the Holodomor should not be used for politcal purposes by any side. The key is an objective article. Ljudyna (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna

I regret that "The living conditions in the USSR, in many cases, were even superior to that of western countries" swings the propaganda pendulum a bit too far the other way. I am personally familiar with cases of Soviet doctors, etc. visiting the U.S. and genuinely believing, upon seeing a fully stocked supermarket, that it was a capitalist lie staged solely for their benefit. And I am personally familiar with the quality (not) of Soviet era construction. But to the crux of the issue: until official Russia officially acknowledges the crimes against humanity wrought by the Soviet Union instead of glorifying the post WWII Soviet oppression of 100,000,000 as "liberation", among other less than stellar moments, the Holodomor and other tragedies will remain "political." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

why a different label?

why is this not called a Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert why

[2] This revert was done as I believe majority of sources say the famine was in fact man made, or at least that stalins policy's were a major contributing factor. Also no page number given for a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no denying that unlike the prior famine in which aid was sought (with Herbert Hoover running the famine aid effort), Stalin did not request aid, Stalin prevented Ukrainians (in particular) from leaving the famine zone, Stalin requisitioned grain to the point of leaving nothing, etc., etc. Not asking for international aid could only be a conscious and deliberate decision. "Oops, I forgot, we could have asked for help like we did before!" Somehow I don't see that in Stalin's lexicon. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Read last Conquest's interviews on that account. Being a honest scholar, he partially reconsidered his views, and he does not consider this famine a deliberate Stalin's act. I also advise you to read a whole discussion between Conquest and Wheatcroft, both sides provide quite persuasive arguments. Moreover, your edit is in a direct contradiction with what the article (a "Genocide qiestion" section) currently says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Who doubts here that this famine is a part of the bigger Soviet famine? Why do you keep deleting that statement? (Igny (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

Because some writers, such as Timothy Snyder, have noted t hat there were special conditions in Ukraine that were not implemented in other parts of the USSR that contributed to greater lethality in Ukraine - i.e., it is just one POV that the famine in Ukraine was simply another part of the general USSR-wide Famine, specific only by geography.Faustian (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'universalist' view is standard Russo-Soviet rhetoric, "one slav people", "one orthodox people", "no holocaust, one tragedy to all citizens during great patriotic war", and of course, that the 'famine affected the entire USSR'. Its typical for Communists to try to view everything as equal, but its unhistorical.--Львівське (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, could you provide a source showing that it is the consensus of academic writers that the famine was man-made? TFD (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that there is no consensue about whether or not it is genocide, but general consensus that it was manmade. For what it's worth, Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, pg. 42: "though collectivization was a disaster everywhere in the Soviet Union, the evidence of clearly premeditated mass murder on the scale of millions was most evident in Ukraine."Faustian (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Majority of sources clearly state that Holodomor was a deliberate act. Stalin Genocides. Norman M. Naimark. Some quotes.

"By 1931 the state collections of cereals in the largest wheat-growing regions of Ukraine and the northern Caucasus constituted 45–46 percent of the entire harvest, leaving the peasants bereft of food supplies.3 Grain shortages led the peasants to slaughter their animals. Those collective farms that still had supplies of seed grain for the following year’s harvest were forced to turn them over to the authorities. There was nothing left to eat or to plant, less because of the total size of the harvest (historians estimate that it was not so bad in 1932) than because of the forced removal of peasant production"

"Widespread grain shortages in Ukraine due to the excesses of requisitioning led to fierce hunger and horrible desperation in the Ukrainian countryside, as well as in northern Kuban"

"In the month of February 1933 alone, cordons of OGPU troops arrested 220,000 Ukrainian peasants attempting to flee their villages. Of these, 190,000 were sent back home, which meant they were essentially condemned to death. The rest were sent to the Gulag, where the death rate during the famine years was also exceptionally high.8 Roadblocks set up by the authorities prevented Ukrainian peasants from entering the cities, where food was sometimes available, though far from plentiful. Even when the desperate peasants managed to elude the roadblocks and find their way to the city, they often collapsed and perished in the streets from lack of food. The authorities had the dead bodies quickly removed from sight. Offers of food relief to Ukraine from outside the Soviet Union were turned down as unnecessary; in fact, the Soviet authorities obstinately denied the very existence of the famine when they knew differently"

Should anyone have sources which say it was not deliberate please present them. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wheatcroft, Davis, Tauger, Ellman. Robert Conquest, the author of "Harvest of Sorrow", does not support the idea about a deliberate nature of Holodomor any more. All these works have been cited in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

These are still a minority. The majority consensus is that is was deliberate.--Galassi (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

These seem to be some of the top authors on the topic. GreyHood ^Talk 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tauger seems to be th only one who denies that it was manmade. From this article, recent Conquest: "that with resulting famine imminent, he [Stalin] could have prevented it, but put 'Soviet interest' other than feeding the starving first - thus consciously abetting it." Wheatcroft - "[W]e regard the policy of rapid industrialization as an underlying cause of the agricultural troubles of the early 1930s, and we do not believe that the Chinese or NEP versions of industrialization were viable in Soviet national and international circumstances." Recent Conquest and Wheatcroft deny that Stalin's goal was to starve peasants, however they do state that the famine was caused by Soviet policies and thus was artificial/manmade. The fact that the famine was manmade seems to be noncontroversial and the view of the majority of scholars. Whether killing was the goal in itself (vs. the known but accepted side effect of the Soviet industrialization of agriculture) is where opinions among scholars differ - and whether this can be labelled genocide is more controversial still. But the fact that it was manmade is not.Faustian (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

These authors conclude that the government policy partially contributed to the famine. In addition, the term "man made" implies that Holodomor was deliberately organised, which was probably not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Underlying cause" seems to tell us it was manmade - in other words, if not for man's interventions there would not be the famine. I would prefer some sort of clarification, such as a sentence about the dispute whether the starvation was deliberate policy in itself vs. a known and accepted side effect of another policy. The consenus is that the famine wasn't just due to a dustbowl-type situation where the peasants didn't produce enough to even feed themselves. Without the phrase man-made it reads as if this might have been the case.Faustian (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was (and continues to be) a draught some every 10-11-12 years in the East European plain because of the solar cycle (and it is extremely widely known fact), so there would be low harvest and hunger anyway and speculations like that "if not for man's interventions there would not be the famine" are hardly could be proven true. The actions of authorities (or the lack of them) contributed to the scale (almost everyone agrees on that), but it is a question how much was that contribution. GreyHood ^Talk 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a very deadly famine in the Volga region in the 19th century but not in Ukraine, where unlike in Russia "bad years" and low harvests did not result in mass deaths. A summary of historical famines in Ukraine from the Encyclopedia of Ukraine: [3].Faustian (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Holodomor wasn't deliberate - how many Soviet politicians have been punished as responsible for such major errors?Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The top persons from the government of the Ukrainian USSR (e.g. Stanislav Kosior) were executed few years later, though on different charges. GreyHood ^Talk 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"on different charges". If people didn't obey Soviet leadership, they were arrested and excuted rather than purged years later. The same were purged people outside Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Charges related to past activity were normal during the purges. Also, there was a related anecdote, that while in the U.S. a spy would be charged with economic crimes and sentenced, in the USSR an economic criminal would be charged as spy and sentenced. GreyHood ^Talk 13:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There appear to be an edit war over the statement of relief being denied, urely none can state that relief was not denied? All sources point to this fact. Also per WP:BRD the recent changes which were reverted are also being edit warred in, it was inserted, it was reverted, now discuss. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources have been provided in a responce to your request. These sources are by no means unreliable, minority or fringe. Moreover, the article currently states that many scholars do not believe Holodomor was deliberately organised. Therefore, your revert is totally unjustified.

In addition, the dispute is over at least three separate things: the man made nature of Holodomor, Holodomor as a part of the Great Famine, and the prohibition of relief by the government. Although these issues had already been discussed later, we can discuss them again. However, let's do that separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Wheatcroft&Davis

Below is a quote from the Paul Gregory's review on R. W. Davies, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft's "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933" published in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 78, No. 2 (June 2006), pp. 539-541:

"The most intense battle was for grain collections, which became literally a life-and death struggle as declining morale, poor weather, and the spread of infestation resulted in grain production declines in 1931 and 1932. Some of the most fascinating archival material in this book describes the intense political lobbying of the Politburo by the party bosses from grain-producing regions as the bosses jockeyed for reduced collections and for grain and seed loans from central funds. Concessions were top secret, and information about them withheld from other regional bosses. Ukraine played the most prominent role as the major grain producer and as a republic directly represented in the Politburo (by P. Kosior)—a privilege that proved costly in 1931, when Kosior maintained Politburo discipline by not lobbying for reductions for Ukraine.

"The authors (particularly Wheatcroft) are the most authoritative experts in the world on grain statistics (see, e.g., their appendix on grain harvests). (....) As famine intensified, collections were shifted to nonfamine regions, collections were halted in Ukraine on February 5, 1933 (212), and the Politburo and secret police (OGPU) introduced draconian food distribution policies that directed food only to those working in the fields and (to their credit) to children and denied food to those already seriously weakened by hunger. Residents of famine regions were prevented by strict administrative controls from fleeing to regions with less famine. Rations to industrial workers were reduced to near-starvation levels as distributions were grudgingly made from the general fund. Davies and Wheatcroft show that Stalin and the Politburo did not manufacture famine to punish class enemies but that they did attempt to control the famine by saving productive farm workers and children while deliberately sacrificing the “nonproductive.”"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Chilling. Reminds me of killing the weak/unproductive in the concentration camps but giving those who could work as slave laborers enough food to survive. This supports that the famine was artificial, the product of policies. No man-made interventions, the peasants would have been able to feed themselves and would not have starved. Also a lot of stuff was declassified since 2006 - Timothy Snyder's work seems to have the most up-to-date info. It is summarized in the article here. Faustian (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to conclude that the "majority consensus" is that the famine was man-made we need a source that says something like, "the majority consensus is that the famine was man-made". Presenting the opinions of various scholars is not helpful because we do not know what weight the academic community assigns them. However, if some scholars say it was not man-made means that we cannot say it was, unless we have a source that that opinion represents consensus. TFD (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If we don't use the word "consensus" we can state "most researchers" which is a summary of what is in the body of the article. Doing so does not seem to be a synthesis or original research.Faustian (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Per our policy, "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The works of the scholars listed by me meet all these criteria, and, independently on bare number of the authors thinking otherwise we cannot ignore the above listed sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

{ec} @TFD, sorry, Davies and Wheatcroft are not a good source for intent. Gregory's "show..." ignores D&W's explicit disclaimer in their work that they make absolutely no judgements as to acts whose results were detrimental to the populace, nor do they speculate on any possible motivations on such acts. Again, there was no reason to not request international aid, which had been given so freely and generously in earlier famine, so "draconian" as "saving" people is really quite laughable. What workers in the fields were being saved when every bit of grain was requisitioned? What exactly were they tilling? "Residents of famine regions" prevented from leaving the famine region AFAIK extended only to the Ukraine. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are, and they explained their views as follows:

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that 'Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it'." (Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman Author(s): R. W. Davies and Stephen G. WheatcroftSource: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633)

In that sense, Holodomor is not different from the Bengal famine of 1943: British administration could prevent it, but it preferred not to do that being preoccupied with the war with Japan.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS J V, all that I am asking for is a source that says there is consensus that the famine was man-made, in which case it is a fact and we can report it as such. If on the other hand, it is a majority opinion, with significant opposing dissenting views, then we can say that too. Otherwise, we get bogged down in people selecting their favored works. I have no interest in whether the famine was man-made or an act of God, merely what scholarship says. TFD (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede itself currently states there is no consensus. The third paragraph says:

"Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the degree to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Stalin. Scholars and politicians using the word Holodomor emphasize the man-made aspects of the famine, arguing that it was genocide; some consider the resultant loss of life comparable to the Holocaust. They argue that the Soviet policies were an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide. Others claim that the Holodomor was a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization."

The situation when the first and third paragraphs of the lede contain mutually exclusive statements is ridiculous and that undermine credibility of Wikipedia. I suggest everyone at least to read the article carefully before making changes to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the 1st and 3rd paragraphs are necessarily mutually contradictory. Man-made policies made a poor harvest a deadly one; perhaps the third paragraph can be changed to make this clearer.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• @The Last Angry Man. Yes, the famine was described as "man-made" in most books, especially by Robert Conquest (not mentioning the "Black book", etc.). Hence the name of the famine ("Holodomor", "killing by hunger"). Some other books (e.g. by Figes) are more ambiguous, but tell that the deaths of people were certainly "man-made" (because the military/NKVD forces were used to prevent the movement of population after taking all their food). The controversy here is different. It is about the question if this man-made famine was used to exterminate specifically the Ukrainian population. Here Conquest tells "yes" (based on a number of facts and analysis in his book "The harvest of sorrow"), but Figes tells "no" (without providing any arguments).Biophys (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, I recommend you to read the discussion first. Conquest's position had changed: he does not consider this famine a deliberate act of starvation. With regard to the contribution of human mistakes and governmental policy into the onset of the famine, it was significant. However, Holodomor is not significantly different from many other famines in that respect, for example from the Bengal famine of 1943.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And Stalin Genocides which I quoted extensively above says it was deliberate, and wheatcroft reporting on what conquest says is opposite to what you say. He says quite clearly that stalins policys exaggerated the famine. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(I believe you don't mind me to replace you semicolon with the colon). If one source states it was deliberate and another that it was not, we cannot write it was deliberate. Regarding Wheatcroft, please, re-read the quote, and show me where did you see the statement that the famine was deliberately organised. Wheatcroft states that Stalin's policy aggravated the famine, however, that is the thesis I never rejected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That i not what I said, I said your interpretation of what Wheatcroft says regarding Conquest is wrong. Conquest clearly states the famine was caused by stalins failure to help the people. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@TFD earlier on no personal interest, that is quite impossible. Having done quite some study on writing about history, all scholarly historical narrative of quality is written from a (real) point of view (as opposed to what we call that here, i.e., bias), that is, what is the story to be told. Quite frankly, the overly narrow interpretation of "deliberate" and "man made" here on the part of some (to the point where you would think it would require Stalin to stop the rains in the first place) gets in the way of any meaningful discourse, as it is quite clear that the consequences of the famine were squarely directed at the Ukrainians, as stated in a plethora of sources. Once management of the famine (continued grain requisitions, shooting those who violate restrictions on movement, shooting those who take a handful of grain to survive, etc.) involved decisions by authorities, and those decisions formed a pattern particularly and repeatedly inimical to the Ukrainians, that is more than sufficient to support the majority of sources which assign culpability to Stalin and not merely to chance. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We cannot determine what the sources mean and which are more acceptable and should find a source that explains how the topic is viewed by scholars. Of course scholars write from a point of view (or bias), that is why they write, but they are required to be factual, including when they are explaining the views generally held by scholars. Typically a scholar may write something like, "While the consensus of scholars is x, I will argue y". We then have an rs that x was the consensus view when the paper was written and can look at later sources to see if y has gained any acceptance. TFD (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexander J. Motyl i of the opinion that the vast majority of scholars view Holodomor as a genocide. "No one, anywhere, today disputes that millions of Ukrainians were starved to death in 1932–1933. No one disputes that the famine was avoidable, and almost no one disputes that it was a crime. Even Viktor Yanukovych calls it an “Armageddon.” And a significant, and growing, number of serious non-Ukrainian scholars, journalists, and other opinion makers consider the Holodomor to have been genocid" and that "the empirical evidence for viewing the Holodomor as an intentional mass killing is overwhelming. If you’re neutral, you’ll be persuaded. If you’re a die-hard skeptic or have a political agenda, on the other hand, no amount of evidence will do the trick."[4] The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"And the generally accepted view by States, prominent individuals and international organizations i that the holodomor was a crime against humanity committed by the USSR" (2010) State Accountability Under International Law: Holding States Accountable for a Breach of Jus Cogens Norms (Routledge Research in International Law) Routledge ISBN 978-0415577830 pp112. Sounds like a conensus to me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Per out policy, blogs are not reliable sources. In contrast, a really reliable source describe the origin of the famine as follows:

"The chain of events leading to the famine is well documented, and there is considerable agreement among historians of the subject (Conquest, 1986; Graziosi, 1991; Lewin, 1968, 1985; Nove, 1980, 1989). The crisis had its origin in the end of the New Economic Policy (NEP), and in the "great turn" in 1929 to undertake an ambitious plan of rapid industrialization, which then greatly accelerated the process of urbanization. During the first five-year plan national income, industrial production, and investment were supposed to multiply by a factor of two or three, while consumption was also supposed to increase (Nove, 1989: 145). Industrial workers and urban dwellers, the protagonists of this incredible effort, had to be fed; hence a new system of grain procurement was enacted (in practice, forcible extraction of grain from the peasants with negligible or no compensation." (On the Human Costs of Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Author(s): Massimo Livi-BacciSource: Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 743-766)

So, clearly manmade.Faustian (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "as it is quite clear that the consequences of the famine were squarely directed at the Ukrainians, as stated in a plethora of sources." See, e.g.

"Studies of the famine of 1932-1933 have focused primarily on its main epicen- ters: Ukraine with its highest absolute losses of human life, Kazakhstan with its highest rates of mortality, and the steppe regions of the Don and Kuban to the north of the Caucasus mountain ridge. The current article is an attempt to broaden the perspective on these tragedies by examining the supply crisis of 1932-1933 and its aftermath in a place well outside these areas - the Urals region. Even in this "non-famine" area death by starvation was ubiquitous in 1932-1933. This underscores the fact that the famine arose from the general problems created by the Soviet regime's agricultural policies of the preceding years rather than from factors specific to the situation in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, or the North Caucasus."(The 1932–1933 Crisis and Its Aftermath beyond the Epicenters of Famine: The Urals RegionAuthor(s): GIJS KESSLERSource: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3/4 (Fall 2001), pp. 253-265 Published by: Harvard Ukranian Research Institute)

Re crime against humanity, who argues against that? Stalin took insufficient measures to prevent the famine, but did he organised this famine? The most authoritative sources agree that he didn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• No needs in blogs. Just read the book: The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine by Robert Conquest. It's all there. @Paul Siebert. No, Conguest never changed his views on the famine as genocidal policy of murder by hunger, as should be clear for anyone who read two his latest books "Reflections on a Ravaged Century (1999)" and "The Dragons of Expectation" (2004).Biophys (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On the page 441 of their "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933" (2004) Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. cite the Conquest's letter addressed to them from which they concluded that he did change his opinion. And the statement of these two scholars weights much more than your interpretations. I myself saw a recent interview with Conquest that confirms the Davies & Wheatcroft's conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are completely misrepresenting what Conquest wrote "No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it'." It is quite clear there that Conquet still holds Stalin accountable. The excessive stealing of food from the populace along with the taking of seed grain and forceful turning back of anyone trying to leave the area are proof enough that it was deliberate. As stated, majority of sources state quite clearly that this famine was a direct result of soviet policy and was then used to crush the populace by starvation. You have one source which uses the tired old excuse of "rapid industrialization" was the cause. Sorry no, we use what majority of sources say, not what one source says. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If "rapid industrialization" was the cause, this means that the famine was manmade. Killing people does not have to be the explicit goal for it to be considered manmade.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In a totalitarian state, in which any peace of paper and bread is controled by the government, millions don't die without the acceptance of the government. If the Holodomor was an error, why the responsibles weren't arested and punished the way some Soviet generals were murderd in 1941? There are no proves that the Great Purge was organized to punish the responsibles. They died like party activists in any republic, both very hungry and not so much hungry.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yours above which is in the form of a question appears to erroneously associate crime and punishment as being a causal relationship in a totalitarian society. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, Motyl does not say "the vast majority of scholars view Holodomor as a genocide". He writes, "...will the view of the Holodomor as genocide gain the upper hand? I’m betting that the answer is yes...." TFD (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Igny has removed the fact that the famine was man made, despite the obvious consensus here on talk that is was both man made and entirely separate from the wider famine in the manner in which it was dealt with. I would appreciate Igny explain why he feels these facts are seemingly irrelevant. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re despite the obvious consensus here on talk that is was both man made and entirely separate from the wider famine in the manner in which it was dealt with. . First, consensus is not so obvious to me, and believe me I would notice if there was some consensus here. Well, there isn't. Secondly, there are number of RS discussion Holodomor as part of the wider Soviet famine. In the previous discussions editors failed to bring any RS claiming that Holodomor wasn't part of the wider famine, if we ignore one fringe claim that there was no famine outside of Ukraine . (Igny (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

You seemed to think it was man-made here.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care much about man-made or not. What happened to the consensus "part of the wider famine" and scholarly estimate up to 4mil? (Igny (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

At least where "wider famine" is concerned, it is the man-made concentration of the famine's effect specifically on the Ukrainians, exacting a genocidal toll on their population, which speaks to the name "Holodomor." Your position essentially contends it's just the Ukrainians complaining more than anyone else similarly affected. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No need in this phrase

I reverted this edits, because the lede already devotes a separate paragraph to the discussion of the causes of Holodomor. In my opinion, the people who continue to re-add this statement simply haven't read the lede in full. We cannot say "as a result of Soviet policy" in the first paragraph and simultaneously to say that "scholars continue to disagree over the relative contribution ..." in the last para. That undermines a credibility of Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed this concern by more properly indicating that there is a range of scholarly opinion on Stalin and the famine, that is, to the degree (his) policies were causative, and the degree to which (his) policies were reactive to circumstances and worsened conditions (e.g., restricting mobility, not requesting foreign aid as in the prior famine). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

In my opinion, these edits are neutral and non-controversial. I support them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Vecrumba's edits could be/are neutral and non-controversial, but the same could be/is true for Galassi's edits - they concern different things and were made in different places in the article.

I thought we already went over this (it's somewhere in the archives of the archives - probably need an index to find the index to find the actual discussion). It's basically the same as the argument over whether it was "man-made". Mainstream sources DO agree that it was "man-made" - the controversy is about whether it was purposefully man made. You can have a famine which is caused by man, or men (or more generally speaking, "policies") but which was not the intention of this man, men or policies. Or you can have policy which was specifically designed to cause starvation for political reasons. That's what the debate is about. The fact that "man-made" "Soviet policies" were responsible for the famine or for its severity is NOT controversial. Going by that, Galasassi's edit is perfectly fine.

And I just wanted to note, for the sake of the record, and to establish my own neutrality here on this topic, that personally I hold the view - based on, for example, the work of folks like Amartya Sen - that virtually all modern (in the sense of "post Industrial Revolution") famines were/are "man made" (Sen makes the argument in detail why this is so). So the same thing applies to the Bengal famine of 1943 (that article is pretty bad, based on way way outdated research) and even something like the Irish Potato famine, although of course each one had its own particular set of circumstances. This by itself (the fact that it was man made and government policies were responsible) isn't something special about the Holodomor, and again, should be non-controversial. So it shouldn't be excluded. Volunteer Marek  04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If most famines were man-made (the thesis I fully agree with), then why do we need to stress this fact in this particular case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And this "part of" business - I know that has been discussed to death previously (here's two instances [5], [6]) - I know there's more because another one I participated in), so why is this still being dragged around? I thought the consensus was established here. It's like some editors just wait for others to loose interest and then go and try to put back their preferred version back in. Over and over and over again... Anyway, sure, fine, let's go through it again. The Holodomor happened contemporaneously with a more general famine in the Soviet Union as a whole. But there was some unique aspects to it, which is why it is seperated out in the literature. Pretending that it was just a localized version of a greater famine is most definitely POV pushing - by privileging a pretty minority, not to say, fringe, view of things right there in the first sentence of the lede.

So how about instead of saying "...is the name for a part[2] of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 that took place..." the article says "...was the famine on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in..." and then the fact that there was a general Soviet famine is mentioned later on, either in the article or in the lede. OBVIOUSLY this topic is different, and notable (despite all the attempts at deleting, merging, turning it into a redirect that have been made) from that of the general Soviet famine. We can't have a separate article on it and then just say, "oh it was just part of something else". Volunteer Marek  05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for articulating so well, what I had meant to write.Faustian (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am absolutely transfixed at Volunteer Marke's post above as well his post at another article on my watchilst. I can't speak to the details here on Wikipedia but I have a treasure-trove of sources on this from a near-GA article (might make good general reading for those interested in famines, some sources can be used in this article). Please let me know here or on my talk page if you would like to receive the list of sources by e-mail. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Marek! The problem is that Russia sees itself as the successor state to the USSR, and the pro-Russian wikifactions are sensitive to the perceived potential of the "USSR guilt" being transferred onto Russia. Hence we have all this rehashing...--Galassi (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can have a separate article on it and can say that it was a part of something else. Wikipedia has many articles on something that is part of something, like for example the Eastern Front (World War II) was a part of World War II. Also, we should avoid ambiguity of the term "man-made", which could mean both intentional action or unintentional consequences of earlier actions. GreyHood ^Talk 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I get that the term "man-made" can be interpreted in an ambiguous fashion here, as "intentional". Now, it might have been in fact "intentional" but that's subject of discourse. So if you can think of a better way to put it, then please help us out. I suspect however that any wording which admits that human-driven-policies played a large role in this famine, will be "ambigous" in this way to some extent. "Man-made" is probably about as neutral as we can get. Volunteer Marek  22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Man-made" is better than nothing at all. With no clarification, an imlication could be that it was simply a bad harvest and that human actions had nothing to do with it.Faustian (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All needed clarifications are made in the third paragraph.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But, IMO, the fact that it was manmade seems notable enough to warrant a brief word or two in the beginning of the article. That should be clear from the beginning.Faustian (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect how topics are normally described, not the judgments of individual editors. We may as well talk about the "man-made depression of 1939", the "man-made war in Iraq", the "man-made AIDS epidemic". TFD (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If the whether the Great Depression or the Iraq war (I have no idea what your reference to the AIDS epidemic is supposed to imply) were man-made was discussed in sources than yeah, we should include that. But it's generally not - unlike here. Like I said before, I happen to think that all modern famines are "man-made". But the sources still find this aspect important enough to emphasize in the case of this particular famine - perhaps because the "man-made" part was such a big part of it. If the sources emphasize it, then so do we on Wikipedia. If the sources on the Great Depression don't emphasize it then neither do we.

You're very obviously trying to move the goal post here by trying to compare the subject of this article to just ... random topics (like GD). Of course the relevant standard of comparison is other famines. Now, Wikipedia being the imperfect piece of crap that it often is, other famines' articles suffer from similar problems (and I just tagged the Bengali one for this very reason). But that would be the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF.

So let me sum up here: it was "man-made" and that is not controversial in mainstream sources. But "not-controversial" does not imply "not-discussed", which it is. And yeah, we need to reflect these sources. Get over it. Volunteer Marek  22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As we have seen, most authors describe the Famine as having been man-made in some way (where they differ, is whether or not the starvation was intentional). Unlike economic problems or war which are always man-made (vs. natural disasters), making clarification unnecessary, some famines are manmade (i.e., all crops unharvested, lost to floods or blight), others are not (harvested grain sent out of from a starving region), so a brief clarification is a good thing, right?Faustian (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty here is that something like war is always "man-made". Famines ... it's a bit trickier. Like I mentioned above, there is a strand of thought - fairly well accepted - that says that basically any post-industrial society (and yes, that would include 1930's Soviet Union or late-colonial rule India, and even 19th century Ireland) has the means to prevent or address famines and so if you see a famine occurring it's because someone either wanted it or allowed it to happen. But historically (pre-1800's, which is, like 99% of human history), famines could have been "natural" and not "man-made". Essentially TFD is playing games here by equivocating between things which are completely different phenomenon (wars and famine). Yes, I know it's an annoying tactic. Volunteer Marek  22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Bengal famine involved the entire crop being destroyed by a flood and then by fungus. Neither of these factors were mandmade. The"manmade" part of the Bengal famine involved not exporting to Bengal from nearby India, which is something that could have been done but wasn't. In Ukraine, there actually were crops (the harvest was worse, but not so bad that the people would have starved had their grain not been taken away). Taking the grain away from the people caused the starvation; Soviet polcieis contributed to the worse harvest. Both manmade factors. Thus the Ukraine famine seems to have been more manmade, notably so.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrt to Bengali famine, not quite (for a quick comment see [7] this] which leaves out a lot of important details but does say it was more than just crop failure/failure to import. Even within Bengal itself, the total amount of food available was slightly greater or only slightly less than in previous years throughout the years of the famine (I could go and dig up the original Sen paper(s) but I'm pretty sure of it because I remember it made quite an impression on me when I first read it a bunch of years ago). Also, if I remember correctly, similar thing was true for the mid 80's Ethiopian famine - despite the low rainfall, total food production was actually higher or only slightly lower in many of the months that people were starving. We shouldn't get into a "competition of the famines" here, but basically, all three of these cases had to do with 1) food distribution rather than food production and 2) the fact they were happened under authoritarian (or worse) regimes. In that respect they were all "man-made" (though the initial "shock" that initiated them might have been "natural"). Anyway, like I said, the "man-made" aspect in this particular case is both emphasized in the sources and non-controversial. Volunteer Marek  13:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I wrote, "Wikipedia articles should reflect how topics are normally described, not the judgments of individual editors." If I want to read personal opinions, I can go to a blog. Please stick with what reliable sources say and avoid comments on other editors. TFD (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you wrote THAT, and I have no problem with THAT, and obviously THAT is not the part I'm disagreeing with. But you followed up with We may as well talk about the "man-made depression of 1939", the "man-made war in Iraq", the "man-made AIDS epidemic". - which is clearly a personal opinion of yours (you have a blog?), and THIS was the part I was disagreeing with. My "comments about other editors" were clearly a response to their claims - that's called a "discussion". Volunteer Marek  12:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My point was that it is not up to us to examine the evidence and determine whether the famine was "man-made" but to reflect what sources say. If there is consensus in academic writing, that it was "man-made", then we call it man-made. If that is a majority opinion we say that too. We should not read into sources that it was man-made. Obviously we could determine that many catastrophes were man-made, but it would be tendentious editing to add that description to their articles unless we could show that that was the normal description. TFD (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said, this discussion of the sources has already been had several times, and it was shown that sources (Snyder, Browning, etc.) do refer to it as "man-made". You were pretending that these discussions never took place and implying that sources do not describe this phenomenon as "man-made". Volunteer Marek  15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)As TFD says, if majority of sources say it was man made then that is what the article ought reflect, and as majority of sources say it was man made then he will have no issue with this fact being mentioned in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The main reason these conversations go on so long is that editors ignore or misrepresent what other editors have said, inviting them to reply. You may not agree with my understanding of WP:WEIGHT, which is fine, but please do not misrepresent my writing. Okay, here we go. Some sources indeed say the famine was "man-made". Now we have to determine the prominence of that viewpoint. How do we do that? The best way is to consult a reliable source that explains the prominence of different viewpoints. I have continually asked for sources and they have not been provided. Saying that the majority of sources say it is manmade is original research. What we should not do is engage in discussion of the facts and make our own determination whether it was man-made. That is original research. Also, you should avoid the assumption that I am asking for sources because I have a particular view on the subject. TFD (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That Holodomor (i.e. the famine among peasants of Ukraine) was a result of the government policy (at least, partially) is undoubtful. However, as we agreed, all recent famines were man-made, so the question is of how exceptional Holodomor is. Does it stay apart from the Bengal or Irish famines, according to majority scholars? Until the evidences have been provided, I see no reason to stress this fact in the first sentence of the lede. Moreover, not only TLAM added the statement "man-made famine"[8], he also removed the statement that it was a part of the Soviet famine. Talk page contains nothing even remotely resembling a consensus about removal of these words, therefore, the TLAM's edit summary is misleading. That is should not be repeated again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A- It was undoubtedly man made due to the actions if Stalin and his ilk. B- It is entirely exceptional from other famines as other famines were not a result of government policy (such as the potato famine) to compare them is ludicrous. It is exceptional also in the fact that people were turned back at the border or shot if trying to leave the affected area, I am quite certain the british never did that in either Ireland or Bengal. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems we all agree that it was indeed "man-made". The question then is whether sources stress that it was "man-made", or is that left unsaid. The very fact that there exist some fringe sources which deny that it was man made is a reason for why mainstream sources could stress the fact. And indeed that is what happens. I already mentioned Snyder and Browning above. There are of course others. What TFD is asking for is a source which says "most sources say that it was man-made" - this is more of moving of goal posts. What next, asking for a source which says that "most sources say that most sources say that it was man-made"? You have prominent historians stressing that it was man made. That's enough. Volunteer Marek  17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to ask for a source for the weight that should be assigned to various opinions. Your opinion about what most sources say may be right, but it is OR. Whether or not I believe the famine was manmade is irrelevant. And your comment about asking for sources about what most sources say is absurd. A statement about what most sources say is a statement of fact which may safely be sourced to a reliable source, if you can find one. Surely this subject is sufficiently notable that there are sources that explain how it is perceived. It would be surprising if you were the first person in history to actually look into that issue. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this kind of standard - that you need not just a source, or even multiple sources, to say something before it can be included in the article, but you need a specific source which says "most sources say this" - is not policy and I've never seen it applied on any other Wikipedia article. Well, I've seen people try, as a way of justifying their IDON'TLIKEIT obtuseness in regard to something, but never (or at least rarely) successfully. Like I said, you're moving the goal posts and trying to establish a very high burden of proof on others, without having yourself bothered to provide a single, reliable source, which disagrees with the opinion that it was "man-made". Volunteer Marek  16:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And another thing

Why has there been a POV tag on this article since June? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention I fixed the POV claims introduced to the article in June by bringing the number of deaths to the figures established by a consensus. Now it is all good. (Igny (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Man-made character and Soviet famine context

• Man-made character is accurately and neutrally described in the latter part of the lead. Direct and unconditional statement that complex and controversial nature of the event was "man-made" is POV-pushing and enters a contradiction with the last paragraph of the lead. Logic fallacy.
• Whatever the views on the character of the event, it was the part of a larger one (happened in the same country, at the same time, due to the same reasons), this is highly relevant and should be mentioned. Not mentioning it here is like not mentioning World War II in the article about Eastern Front (World War II). Removing it from the intro could not be justified, especially with summaries like "has its own article, therefore stands on its own as an event, not a part of another". It is a normal practice and expected thing for the article on the part of something to mention the whole. Pure logic of knowledge.
  • So, guys, will you support logic afterall or you have special reasons not to do so? GreyHood ^Talk 20:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How about saying 'during' rather than implying it was 'part of' the Soviet famine?--Львівське (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It was part of the Soviet famine. Fact. Perhaps a special part, but this question is addressed later in the lead and in the article. GreyHood ^Talk 20:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, it was not "during", it was not "concurrent to", it was "part of". Do you have reliable sources which claim otherwise? (Igny (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

To claim otherwise (that it was not a "part of") one should claim that Ukrainian SSR was not a part of the USSR. GreyHood ^Talk 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not like anyone's objecting to mentioning the Soviet famine in the lede. But people are, reasonably, objecting to describing the Holodomor as part of the Soviet famine. It's treated as a separate phenomenon in the sources and that's how we should define it and deal with it here. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This article treats Holodomor as a separate phenomenon. It is a separate article after all. But since we talk about the definitions... Do you have a source which claims that Holodomor was isolated from the wider Soviet famine? (Igny (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

There are many sources which detail how once you crossed the border into the Russian SFSR there was no famine to speak of. It was most definitely isolated from the wider problems. Also, there is no connection to what was happening in Ukraine and, say, the Kazakh SSR.--Львівське (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: how once you crossed the border into the Russian SFSR there was no famine to speak of To clarify my request, I meant to provide reliable sources accepted in mainstream, not some fringe claims. (Igny (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Kuban was a part of the Russian SFSR. And the causes of the famine in all parts of the country were common: draught + consequences of collectivization + mismanagement. GreyHood ^Talk 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of almost anything could be treated as separate phenomenon, though such treatment could lead to poor or absurd results in knowledge. If some sources write about Holodomor ignoring the larger famine, it's a problem and likely a major drawback of those sources. We are not bound to replicate the illogical approaches. GreyHood ^Talk 20:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust article uses 'during' to refer to WW2. How is this any different.--Львівське (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust actually started before WWII and was an extermination campaign, not a military campaign or front or battle. Hunger was part of hunger, obviously. GreyHood ^Talk 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The extermination campaign started in 1941, two years into WWII. An off-topic here, but probably quite telling as to the level of the discussion. Colchicum (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust refers to a specific genocidal event in twentieth-century history: the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. A wide definition perhaps, but not unacceptable. And the level of discussion is more likely to downgrade because of the needless remarks like one above. GreyHood ^Talk 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose not to argue about obvious things: famine in Ukraine was a part of the Soviet famine because Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet famine is generally treated as a single event, not a collection of unrelated or vaguely related events (it is "famine" and not "famines"). Logic is crystal-clear here and there is no need to waste more time on this. GreyHood ^Talk 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey, it is treated as part of the greater famine in Soviet historiography, but not necessarily by scholars or more generally accepted accounts. These are the same historiographical accounts that claim the Holocaust to be a Soviet-wide byproduct of the Great Patriotic War. Famine in the USSR occurring concurrently with the instigated famine in Ukraine are separate matters with separate causes and effects.--Львівське (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But the Holodomor - the subject of this article - is treated separately from the Soviet famine. In sources. Volunteer Marek  22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So you have found the source I asked you about? (Igny (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

What kind of source are you looking for exactly? One that claims Holodomor was "isolated" from the rest of Soviet famine? Well, nobody has made that claim. The claim that was made is that the Holodomor is treated separately from the rest of the Soviet famine in sources. Volunteer Marek  22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But here is something along the lines of what you're asking for [9]: "two very different and special phenomenon". So even stronger claims are supported in sources. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understood the snippet correctly, it was talking about treating "national tragedies" separately from the "general framework...". So are we defining the Holodomor as a national tragedy (mourning for the fellow Ukrainians) or the actual famine? If it the former, then it is not a "famine" per se, it is remembering the Ukrainian victims of the famine, and such it is not a part of the wider Soviet famine. Did I understand your claims correctly? (Igny (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

@VM. This source (GIJS KESSLERS. The 1932–1933 Crisis and Its Aftermath beyond the Epicenters of Famine: The Urals Region. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3/4 (Fall 2001), pp. 253-265 Published by: Harvard Ukranian Research Institute), which seems to be reliable and mainstream, has been presented by me less then a month ago on this talk page. This source contains the statement about "plethora" (sic!) sources that agree that Holodomor was inseparable from the greater Soviet famine, and that it was caused by the same reason. What other evidence do you request?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the full symposium material including Hennadii Boriak, former head of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine …presents here two essays that serve as an indispensable guide to the state of archival holdings, primarily in Ukraine but also abroad, that treat the history of the 1932-33 famine-genocide in Ukraine.

When the Ukrainian government replaced Boriak by appointing Olha Ginzburg, a Communist former deputy to the Rada, “one of the most egregious acts of the new head was to shut down the website on the holodomor that had been painstakingly assembled under Boriak’s leadership; Ginzburg did not deem the famine to be an appropriate topic for Ukrainian history. Such an attitude was characteristic of her views of the Soviet period more broadly, and Stalinism more specifically. Boriak’s essays are a tribute to the determined work of thousands of Ukrainian archivists who have accomplished the invaluable task of cataloguing tens of thousands of newly available documents, including photo and film footage from the period, nearly all previously unknown because they had been held in restrictive access collections until the late 1980s." per [10]. It is interesting that you found an article which was specifically aimed at material outside Ukraine, and elided the material in the same publication which specifically dealt with Holodomor as "famine-genocide." Cheers -- I trust you will fully include those articles next time in the discussion, rather than the one small part of the symposium you chose now. Collect (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the materials Boryak presented. They are impressive, however, he provided no comparison with the situation in non-Ukrainian territories. The main his thesis is that since the population was treated brutally, Holodomor was unique. However, the author cited by me expresses the opposite opinion, namely, although the epicenter of the famine was in Ukraine, it was not directed against the Ukrainians specifically. What our policy tells about a situation like this?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• It might be beneficial to place Holodomor in appropriate context. Those are numbers from the book "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest published by Oxford University Press (page 306):

Peasant dead 1930-1937 - 11 million

Arrested in this period dying in camps later 3.5 million

Total: 14.5 million

Of these:

Dead as a result of dekulakization: 6.5 million

Dead in Kazakh catastrophe 1 million

Dead in 1932-1933 famine: 7 million: 5 million in the Ukraine (this is Holodomor); 1 million in the North Caucasus, and 1 million elsewhere. Biophys (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Harwest of Sorrow is somewhat outdated, the total number of excess deaths in the USSR (1917-91) per Werth was 15 million. The total camp mortality during the whole Gulag period was less than 3.5 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, is that 1917-1991? if so then your source is way out. Estimates for Stalin's rule are 15-millions alone. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any mass excess deaths after Stalin. Regarding Werth, you are among the most vehement advocates of the BB. Did you read it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Amusing, Are you saying there were no killings after Stalin's death? The estimates for those who died under Stalin is 15-20 millions, what of those who were killed before and after his rule? Try an comment on content, and not make wild guess`s over what I may or may not have read. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Did you read it? If I don't say that, probably no one else will. Nice one, Paul!.(Igny (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

Kuban

Let us revisit the debate on estimated death toll. The scholars estimated up to 4 million dead in Ukraine an up to 5 million if Ukrainians from Kuban are included. Is Holodomor defined as famine in Ukraine, or famine of Ukrainians? I guess there is an isolation of Holodomor from the Soviet famine if we treat Ukrainians as some chosen ethnicity, and Mace might be right indeed there was almost no famine of Ukrainians outside Ukraine (and probably Kuban) to speak of. But my question is about the death toll in the article template. 5 millions of Ukrainians dead includes Kuban. Is Kuban included in Holodomor? (Igny (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

I believe so...it's part of the Ukrainian ethnic map. It's geographically adjacent. Scholars include it. Why not?--Львівське (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not care less about what you believe. Can you provide RS? (Igny (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

I can not care less what you want to push here, you know yourself that the Kuban is treated by scholars as part of it, as evidenced in the lead of the article. What's your angle here if you already know the answer to your question? Or is this more attrition BS forcing others to dig up sources for your amusement?--Львівське (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Reforcing others to dig up sources for your amusement?. Yes it is rather amusing to ask people to provide sources which support their beliefs, especially when I know there are no such sources out there. But that is ok, I accept that you concede. I just hope that you would stop edit-warring for your beliefs. (Igny (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

We don't need to return to this issue again. If we want to represent Holodomor as a famine directed against the Ukrainians, we need a documental proof of the fact that consensus exists among the scholars about the genocidal nature of Holodomor (in other words, the concept "Holodomor was a genocide of the Ukrainians" is supposed to be the sole mainstream viewpoint). In the absence of such a consensus among the scholars Holodomor is limited with the goegorphical borders of the Ukrainian SSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul & Igny: It is pure POV codswallop to exclude deaths in Kuban outright. I seem to recall that we reached a consensus in last year's War of the Lead to include Kuban deaths as a caveat to the death toll, i.e. "X million deaths in UkSSR, plus X million more if deaths in the heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not object including these deaths. I just point out a cause for a confusion. If the Holodomor is defined in the first sentence as

a man-made famine that took place on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933

and the reader looks at the template before reading the whole lede, he would conclude that 5 million were dead in UkSSR. Moreover these 3 statements together imply that Kuban was part of UkSSR. (Igny (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

In Conquest's 'Harvest of Sorrow', pg 278, "The Ukrainian nationality and culture was strongly attacked," and goes on to talk about repressions in 1932-33 in Kuban against Ukrainians that occurred. Read on and the emphasis is either on Ukrainians, Kuban Cossacks, or Volga Germans. Or here, p100, how the Cossack quarter of the village was starving while those from Leningrad were well fed. Tottle/Mace figures are talked about in regard to Kuban's inclusion to figures. This source explicitly states that Ukraine considers the Holodomor against 'the Ukrainian people' (and not state, or within arbitrary borders or what have you) and 'Ukraine and Kuban' are mentioned in one of the same. Ellman refers to the Kuban Ukrainian genocide...--Львівське (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Conquest partially reconsidered his opinion, and he doesn't insist any more that the famine was directed against Ukrainians specifically.

Secondly, Ellman specified that Kuban is the only case when we have some ground to speak about genocide during the Soviet famine of 1932-33. Ellman does not discuss Holodomor as something separate from the greater Soviet famine ("What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy of genocide against Ukraine" (Ellman 2005)).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some changes to the lede.

I made some changes to the lede that do not seem controversial for me. Firstly, I removed the word "Ukrainians", because there is no evidence that non-Ukrainian rural population suffered in lesser extent. The lede already says that Holodomor occurred on the territory of UkrSSR, so I don't expect any objections.
Secondly, I think that it would be correct to say that Holodomor was caused by a combination of the consequences of the agrarian reforms, food requisitions and poor weather, and scholars argue only about relative contribution of these factors. In connection to that, instead of vague and inconcrete "man-made" I simply listed these factors. If someone wants to add "industrialisation" to the list of causes, we can discuss that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Graziosi

I'm going to move this comment by Paul to a separate section because the discussion (and others like it) has input from other editors and hence tends to go off subject:

@VM. This source (GIJS KESSLERS. The 1932–1933 Crisis and Its Aftermath beyond the Epicenters of Famine: The Urals Region. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3/4 (Fall 2001), pp. 253-265 Published by: Harvard Ukranian Research Institute), which seems to be reliable and mainstream, has been presented by me less then a month ago on this talk page. This source contains the statement about "plethora" (sic!) sources that agree that Holodomor was inseparable from the greater Soviet famine, and that it was caused by the same reason. What other evidence do you request?

The source is actually an article by Andrea Graziosi entitled "The Soviet 1931-1933 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor: Is a New Interpretation Possible,and What Would Its Consequences Be?". As far as I can tell it has been quoted in several other works, including the one by Luciuk and Gezler which is the snippet I quoted above, and apparently by someone else in an article you cite above (it might have been a "Response" or something like that but so far I have not been able to find it). I can email you the original article if you want.

First, note that the author distinguishes between "The Soviet 1931-1933 Famine" and the "Ukrainian Holodomor" even in the title, which clearly implies a certain amount of separation of topics.

Second, best that I can tell by looking at the archives of the talk page of this article, the article has been quoted in different contexts. Specifically, Graziosi does go quite some ways to emphasize that "this" was a man made famine, which is probably the context it came up in before here on Wikipedia. The relevant quote from the article here is:

"In this light it is startling to recall how little we knew before Conquest's book appeared.4 In the best case, historians such as Naum Jasny and Alec Nove did speak of a "man-made famine" (which was still being treated as a single event) without, however, researching it fully and generally ignoring its national aspect"

Note that 1) she emphasizes the fact that historians have called it a "man-made famine" (and this was the the best-case scenario in the research up to that point) and that 2) the author herself notes - objects - to the fact that it "was still being treated as a single event" which was still not "research(ed) fully and generally ignoring its national aspect". So both the fact that it was man-made (and that other sources treat it as such) and that the Holodomor (it's Ukrainian, "national" aspect) needs to be treated separately are both right there.

At this point the author is still giving an outline of the existing literature on the topic, but then she transfers into establishing a contribution of her own:

In order to formulate this new interpretation, we need first to define the object of our investigation. As should be clear by now, we are in fact dealing with what it would be more correct to call, on a pan-Soviet level, the 1931-1933 famines, which had of course common causes and a common background, but included at least two very different and special phenomena: the Kazakhstan famine-cum-epidemics of 1931-1933 and the Ukrainian-Kuban (the latter area, though belonging to the Russian republic's province of Northern Caucasus, being mostly inhabited by Ukrainians) Holodomor of late 1932 to early 1933.

So the author defines the subject. She (I think it is a she, someone correct me if I'm wrong) does acknowledge the "pan-Soviet level" of the "famines" (I don't see anything about a "plethora of famines", in fact, the word "plethora" does not appear in the article at all) but her aim is very clearly to separate out the Holodomor as a "very different and special phenomena". She does connect Ukraine and Kuban, and looking through the archives of this talk page this is of course an issue that has been brought up. My sense here is that in the past some editors tried to use the fact that the Kuban wasn't technically part of Ukraine under Soviet rule, but at the same time that the events there were very similar to what happened in ... let's call it "other parts of Ukraine", to try and argue that it was "part of a Soviet famine" (because it happened in Kuban! Which wasn't technically speaking part of Ukraine! It was part of Soviet Union! So there! It was just a general Soviet famine! Ukrainians go home!). I regard these kinds of tactics as essentially intellectually dishonest, though there probably is some nuanced way to treat the whole Kuban vs. rest of Ukraine issue fairly.

Let's get back to this particular article then. The "man-made" aspect of it is pretty clear AND emphasized by this source, as well as others, which is what I've been saying all along. Yes, in some sense all modern famines are "man-made" but exactly because the "man-made" nature of THIS PARTICULAR one has been denied/hidden by some Stalin-apologists (go back in the archives and see where all these discussions originated - two words "Jacob Peters", two more words "banned editor") is why the sources emphasize the man-made nature of it. So we need it in there.

Likewise, the fact that the Holodomor was different from the general Soviet famine is also in this source - though of course it acknowledges the other ones. We should do likewise. Like I said above, there's no one here who wants to remove any mention of the "Soviet famine" from the lede. The question is about the first sentence where THIS topic is defined. And putting "it was part of" in that is POV and unrepresentative of sources.

My suggestion with regard to this later issue is to define the Holodomor in the first sentence as specific to Ukraine. Then somewhere else in the lede we do need to mention that it occurred concurrently with the Soviet famine and that some writers (let's find some mainstream ones here) treat it as part of the Soviet famine. So basically NOT "part of" in first sentence, but "considered by some to be part of" somewhere else in the lede.

 Volunteer Marek  01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand the article correctly. Graziosi subdivides all scholars onto two categories, A (who believed Holodomor was deliberately designed and performed to kill Ukrainians) and B (who understated the difference in manifestations of famine in Ukraine and in the USSR as whole). The Graziosi's viewpoint is in the middle: she disagrees with the thesis that Holodomor was an absolutely separate event, and that it was designed to exterminate Ukrainians, but she also argues that it definitely had some specific features, and the Stalin's anti-peasant actions became anti-Ukrainian in Ukraine and Kuban after late 1932. In other words, she agrees that Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine, however, she argue that it was a rather specific part. Similarly, she argues that Holodomor was not genocide if a strict definition of genocide is used, but it was definitely a genocide from the point of view of more relaxed definition. The source is well written, contains persuasive arguments, and performs a good overview of the existing studies of all major Holodomor scholars. I support its usage in the article, however, I do not see how my edit contradict to what it says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I'm pretty sure I understand the article just fine. Keep in mind that Graziosi is responding to how the subject was treated before - in a wrong way, ignored. The middle part of your comment - I don't think there's a disagreement there, though at the same time it's pretty clear that she wants to emphasize 1) the man-made nature of the famine and 2) it's particular Ukrainian character. Basically she's saying that yes, before the opening up of the Soviet archives, the topic was treated in a way ... very much similar to how certain editors want to have it treated here on Wikipedia. But since then there has been much more scholarly work done.

Now, nobody - certainly not me - has brought up the question of whether this was a "genocide" or not. So why are you even bringing it up? Nobody's arguing about it so that's a total red herring. You want to argue about this, start a new section. In fact, the very fact that you're trying to push the discussion on to this other, unrelated track, does sort of suggest that you have either not read or not understood the article yourself.

Above I referred to the parts of the article which deal directly with the two issues under discussion here - whether it was "man made" and whether it deserves a definition that's separate from a general "Soviet famine". I provided text from the source in that regard. You haven't done nothing of the kind, just made some kind of weird unsubstantiated claim that I have not "underst(ood) the article correctly". Do better or leave it alone. Volunteer Marek  03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re genocide, forgot it. I am not a novice in this dispute, and, since the genocide issue appears again and again here, I mentioned it simply automatically.

Re quote, for some reason, I cannot cut-and-paste a text from this article, and I am too lazy to type the text. Graziosi does not claim the subject was treated in a wrong way, she just reconciles two different viewpoints: the causes of the famine were similar throughout the USSR as whole, except Kazakhstan, but development of the famine (and, partially, the policy of the authorities) in different parts was different (p. 101). Therefore, as I already said, Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine (as the lede states), however, a very specific part (hence a separate article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, if Graziosi "reconciles" the two different viewpoints then she does so very much at the expanse of B people (pan-Soviet)and in a way very much favorable to the A people (national). She outlines what she does in three steps:

1) A very clear distinction between the general phenomenon and its republic-level or regional manifestations should therefore be introduced in the Soviet case. However, most "A" supporters are in fact speaking specifically of the Holodomor, while many of the "B" proponents think on a pan-Soviet scale. If we analytically distinguish what they are doing, we end up discovering that in many, albeit not all, ways they are correct in their respective domains. - separate out the Soviet case from the national cases. This step looks like the "reconciliation" you're referring to and could justify some kind of "part of" in the lede. Though since the purpose here is to distinguish rather than unite I'd still think it would be better not to have it in the first, definition, sentence of the article.

2) The second step toward a new interpretation consists of yet another analytical distinction. We must separate the 193 1-1932 "spontaneous" famines - they too, of course, were direct, if undesired, consequences of choices made in 1928-1929 - from the post-September 1932 Famine, which took on such terrible features not least because of human decision. - step 1 was a spatial distinction, here we have the temporal one. Note that here she again notes the "man-made"-ness of the famine.

3) Finally, the third step we need to take is to gather and combine useful elements from both "A" and "B" and drop their unsatisfactory parts - sure. The way I read this, in light of what the remainder of the rest of the article contains is as essentially here saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". The paragraph that follows elaborates on this by basically saying that the "A" people sometimes have a too-simplistic view of things, particularly in arguing that the Holodomor was specifically designed/planned to squash Ukrainians, but are not entirely wrong since what happened, according to Grasci, is that the origins of the famine had other causes, but Stalin quickly realized that it could be used towards those ends national-specific ends.

The rest of the article, after she outlines this method, is pretty much all about how Ukraine, in this time period (late 1932+) was different than other Soviet famines. Yes, the author does argue that it wasn't a case of Stalin sitting down and saying, "ok, how can I get those Ukrainians, I know, I'll start a famine", but other than agreeing with the "A people" here everything else she writes supports the idea that the Holodomor was different and was in fact man made.

There's lots of choice quotes I could pull from that work (in fact, maybe make a two column table with one column having "supports the man-made description" and the other with "supports the unique aspect of Holodomor") but I'll just throw out one more for now:

The adoption of the term Holodomor seems therefore legitimate, as well as necessary (my emphasis, VM), to mark a distinction between the pan-Soviet phenomenon of 1931-1933 and the Ukrainian Famine after the summer of 1932

Because the argument is nuanced, some of our disagreement is over the emphasis that author gives to these various nuances. But I would've thought that my proposal to keep the "part of" out of the first sentence but still in the lede would be taken as reasonable. Volunteer Marek  16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the page per a request at WP:RFPP because of the edit warring with almost no discussion over possible changes to the lead. Since you may be able to solve this in a day, or it may take six months, I've made the full protection indefinite. Once you come to a consensus here, let me know and I'll drop the full protection. If you can't solve it amongst yourselves, consider using either the dispute resolution noticeboard or an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ay, that's fine. The only thing is, there has been discussion (umm.... see above) so the justification that "with almost no discussion" seems inappropriate. Hell, I myself have not made a single edit to the article, but all I've done is "discuss". So... I'm at a bit of a loss where this is coming from. Volunteer Marek  02:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess, you were too busy to actually bother reading the talk page, so you went with the "me admin! me protect Wikipedia!" right? Next time, spend some time with it, like the people who are busy discussing the issue on this very page actually do (they look up sources, search for information ... so an admin coming in out of nowhere can do us the courtesy of reading through the discussion first). Sigh. Whatever.  Volunteer Marek  02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that in the current sequence of edits and reverts, there was no discussion here (like, "Hey, stop that, you, we already settled this, look at these discussions in the archive"). I do note that there are some links to past discussions in edit summaries, but, as you point out, there's been a lot of them. All I know is, is that edit warring is inherently bad for articles. It doesn't produce a useful solution, and it disrupts the article. I also know that an admin can't do anything other than protect the article. It's not like I can walk in here and rule by fiat "Yes, this is consensus, so this is the right version." Like I said--if you can demonstrate that the consensus is clear, then the protection can be lifted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Question on the last batch of edits

User:Lvivske approached me on my talk page about the version I protected. As per standard procedure, in cases where it's not exactly clear what the "pre-dispute version" is (especially since there may have been some unrelated productive edits in the midst of the main edit war), I just protected the most current version of the page, knowing full well it's certainly the WP:WRONGVERSION. However, Lvivske pointed out that just before I protected the page, User:Paul Seibert made some rather significant changes to the lead. From what I can see so far, these are not the actual edits that started off the edit war, but do seem to be related (though how closely related is not clear to me). Lviviske recommended that I revert just the last three edits by Paul Seibert. What do other editors think--is there a consensus that those edits should be kept out, at least for the duration of the full protection? If there is no consensus to remove them, then they'll just have to stay and be part of the mess you all have to work out. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Revert. If they are determined to be acceptable by consensus, then they can be added back in. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Revert, Paul removed 'man made' in bad faith, re-added the contested 'part of the soviet famine' part that the edit war was about, and then added the egregious line of "when the population of the Soviet Union suffered from the GREAT FAMINE caused by the consequences of Soviet agrarian reforms and food requisitions, which were exacerbated by poor weather conditions" which not only uses the Soviet propaganda term "Great famine" but heavily pushes the Soviet slanted POV here.--Львівське (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The Soviet propaganda concealed the famine, not publicized it, and it would be more correct to say that the term "Great famine" belongs more to the anti-Soviet propaganda, if to any propaganda at all. And Paul, in fact, accurately describes the main reasons behind the hunger (only the weight and sequence of those reasons is contested, not the fact of existence of each one). Also, due to the usage of the "Great famine" and putting reforms and food requisitions as a main reason, Paul's version has more of traits of the anti-Soviet slanted POV, than otherwise. GreyHood ^Talk 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Revert The major changes are not per consensus or any try at consensus. See also where Paul chose one article out of a symposium where a major article refers specifically to this as a "famine-genocide" which belies his choice of sources entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This section is a try to find consensus. No serious arguments against logic were proposed. GreyHood ^Talk 09:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Revert per the three editors above, and there is an undoubted consensus the famine was man made on this talk page, even PS has said this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Paul and other editors here argued that most or all 20th century famines were man-made to some extent and therefore there is no particular need to emphasize the character of famine in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 09:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And in that they are entirely wrong. This famine was caused entirely by excessive theft of grain, the people were denied relief, they were turned back at the borders or shot. Please show me another famine were those in charge actually stopped the starving people from leaving? Or were relief was denied? Or were the guy in charge used the famine as a means to crush perceived opposition? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The essense of those recent edits is discussed at Talk:Holodomor#Man-made character and Soviet famine context. Reverting them means reverting to a version containing a logical fallacy (contradiction of two parts in the intro) and a major omission of larger context of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 (it is a logical, natural and expected thing to mention it in the lead, like mentioning World War II in the lead of Eastern Front (World War II)). The editors voting revert here didn't presented sources or some strong reasoning why should we go against the obvious logic and usual practices of writing articles and presenting material. If the decision to go against simple logic would be taken as a result of voting, this would be really pity for Wikipedia. GreyHood ^Talk 09:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please actually read what I said. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see your comments addressing the logic problems at this page. If the vote or consensus violates logic, this is not a way to go on and the issue will not become less conflict-prone. GreyHood ^Talk 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • That's because I am not talking about logic problems. I am talking about maintaining the WP:STATUSQUO until we can come to an agreement as to what the new version will be. Consensus can change, but just because you happen to like Paul's addition does not automatically make it the new consensus. Look around you; clearly there is disagreement. But that is why I applied for a full-protect: so we can settle the disagreement over the previous consensus version as determined by last year's War of the Words (see archives) without simultaneously trying to edit-war over each other's POVs on the article itself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Procedurally, this article is not on editing restriction and new consensus can be reached by BRD. So we are here to discuss the facts and logic, not the procedure. Old consensus is too old, and new interested editors, new arguments and new problems to the article mean we need to move further. GreyHood ^Talk 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
          • You continue to miss the point entirely. The reversion of Paul's addition is not an endorsement of the factual/logical veracity of the WP:STATUSQUO. Several editors have voiced dissent against the previous consensus. I recognise that. That is what we are trying to address here on the talkpage during this period of full-protection. Paul's addition is contentious; you can't just decide that since you find it to be better, it is somehow automatically the new "consensus". There has not been sufficient discussion to establish a solution that can be considered "consensus", regardless of how much you harp on "facts and logic". The simple fact of the matter is, your "facts and logic" are not everyone's "facts and logic". Do not call the "battle" in your favour when the fighting is not yet over (if you'll excuse the WP:BATTLEFIELD metaphor). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Your remarks on my part are rather strange. I'm not presenting the edits which I support as if they are the consensus already. It is just a version proposed and disussed on this talk page in several threads. I'm fully aware and can clearly see that unfortunately not everyone here is quick to support the basic logic here. GreyHood ^Talk 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Your insistence on retaining Paul's edits in the article as it stands now is indicative that you regard it as a "consensus" version. It isn't. It is a disputed proposal which can and should be discussed here on the talkpage. However, in order to resolve the purported POV issues that triggered this mess, we should retain the WP:STATUSQUO, i.e. the pre-existing consensus, before we settle on a new one. That way, it is clear what the original wording was and how it needs to be changed to reflect the new consensus. Paul's proposal is a work in progress; the status quo is a final version, albeit a flawed one based on opinions given by certain editors. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Reverting the change, which I see as a compromise solution would mean reinserting the controversial term "man-made", the very thing which started this edit war. The insertion of that term was against consensus at the time. Personally, I do not care if the rather clumsy term "man-made" makes it to the lede, however I find the compromise solution by Paul much better than whatever it was before. (Igny (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
• Revert - I actually could live with Paul's version (though I would make some changes), which seems to have been made in good faith, though I lean towards the previous version.Faustian (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A note to admin Per WP:VOTE, I suggest you to make a decision not by counting votes, but by analysing the strength of the arguments; it is also desirable to disregard the opinions that a re based on a wrong rationale. Thus, Львівське's "Paul removed 'man made' in bad faith, re-added the contested 'part of the soviet famine'" is against WP:AGF, and is based the wrong rationale: the statement 'part of the soviet famine' was not "re-added" by me simply because it was in the previous version" is the name for a man-made famine that took place on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933, part of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933."]. In addition, his statement about my words: "which not only uses the Soviet propaganda term "Great famine" but heavily pushes the Soviet slanted POV here." are deeply misleading, because the term "Great famine" is used by most western scholars writing on this subject (Ellman, Wheatcroft, Conquest, Davies, Rosefielde et al, see the works cited in the article) and not by Soviet propaganda. In addition, can anybody explain me what other reasons, apart from "the consequences of Soviet agrarian reforms and food requisitions, which were exacerbated by poor weather conditions" caused Holodomor, according to mainstream scholars? I already provided the quote that summarises these reasons. I can do that again:

"The chain of events leading to the famine is well documented, and there is considerable agreement among historians of the subject (Conquest, 1986; Graziosi, 1991; Lewin, 1968, 1985; Nove, 1980, 1989). The crisis had its origin in the end of the New Economic Policy (NEP), and in the "great turn" in 1929 to undertake an ambitious plan of rapid industrialization, which then greatly accelerated the process of urbanization. During the first five-year plan national income, industrial production, and investment were supposed to multiply by a factor of two or three, while consumption was also supposed to increase (Nove, 1989: 145). Industrial workers and urban dwellers, the protagonists of this incredible effort, had to be fed; hence a new system of grain procurement was enacted (in practice, forcible extraction of grain from the peasants with negligible or no compensation." (On the Human Costs of Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Author(s): Massimo Livi-Bacci Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 743-766)

"By the summer of 1932, partly as a result of previous Soviet policies, and partly as a result of bad weather, there had been two bad harvests in succession. Although strenuous efforts had been made to build up reserve stocks, these efforts had failed completely (see Davies et al. 1995, pp. 642-657). There is no doubt that grain was in very short supply by the spring and summer of 1932. "(Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman Author(s): R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633)

Taking into account that the last two authors are among the leading experts in grain statistics (Paul Gregory. Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 78, No. 2 (June 2006), pp. 539-541), their opinion is hard to deny. My conclusion is that the Львівське's opinion is based on wrong rationale and should not be counted.
Collect's opinion is based on the statement that I chosen "chose one article out of a symposium where a major article refers specifically to...". I doubt Collect read the sources he mentions. There were no "main article" he is talking about. The article I used was published in the "Harvard Ukrainian Studies" journal (Vol. 25, No. 3/4 (Fall 2001), pp. 253-265), and there were no major or minor articles there.
The The Last Angry Man's rationale is that there is a consensus about "man-made". However, since different levels of "man-madeness" may exist, my text simply explains what does it term means it this particular case: all serious sources agree that it was not deliberately organised, but was a result of the Soviet agrarian reforms (which were started to provide a base for industrialisetion).
The only acceptable opinion is the Lothar's point of view that is in accordance with "BRD". However, nothing prevents us to start a discussion right now, and, by the way, does Lothar have any concrete objections in addition to general "BRD"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My "opinion is based on wrong rationale and should not be counted."? For cyin' out loud...--Львівське (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Genuine note to admin: Paul rather misleadingly says there were no other articles in the Harvard symposium -- which is not only errant, it is misleading and false. The HURI cite I gave makes this clear. [11]

Hunger by Design: The Great Ukrainian Famine and Its Soviet Context / Edited by Halyna Hryn

The years 2002–2003 marked the seventieth anniversary of the man-made famine inflicted on Ukraine and surrounding areas by Stalin's Soviet leadership. The Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute commemorated the anniversary with a symposium in October 2003 titled "The Ukrainian Terror-Famine of 1932–1933: Revisiting the Issues and the Scholarship Twenty Years after the HURI Famine Project." This volume contains some of the papers presented at the symposium (previously published in Harvard Ukrainian Studies volume 25, no. 3/4), including Sergei Maksudov's large-scale demographic study drawing on available documents of the era; Niccolò Pianciola's description of the denomadization famine in Kazakhstan from 1931 to 1933; and Gijs Kessler's study of events in the Urals region from the same period. Also included in this volume are a foreword by Lubomyr Hajda, Andrea Graziosi's remarks on the present state of Famine scholarship and how it addresses the question of genocide, Hennadii Boriak's assessment of the current state of source material, and an essay by George Grabowicz on the legacy of the Famine in Ukraine today. This book offers new contributions to scholarship on the Famine as well as a tribute to those scholars who first broke ground in the field in the 1980s.

Which seems to bear out that a number of articles were presented at the symposium and were published in the exact journal which Paul seems to think has nothing but the single article which is specifically about the outside effects of the famine-genocide. I trust this quote from the HURI web page is sufficiently clear to make the point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I also submit that the HURI specific assessment of man-made rather scronches any counter-arguments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "Paul rather misleadingly says there were no other articles in the Harvard symposium" Can you read? I wrote "There were no "main article" he is talking about. The article I used was published in the "Harvard Ukrainian Studies" journal (Vol. 25, No. 3/4 (Fall 2001), pp. 253-265), and there were no major or minor articles there." Obviously, that means that there were no "senior" or "minor" authors on the simposium, and all articles had the same weight. In addition, the article Collect refers to contains no claims about the absence of famine outside Ukraine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Burger King time .... did you miss Gijs Kessler's study of events in the Urals region from the same period.? mentioned in nice bold letters? The fact is that HURI uses the term "man-made" sans qualifiers, and Kessler's article was restricted to the Urals thus the fact he did not dwell on Ukraine is a D'oh moment. Cheers while you try finding an actual arguemnt here. Collect (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kessler's article was devoted to Urals to demonstrate that the same events as Holodomor occurred simultaneously in other parts of the USSR, although their scale was smaller. He calls Ukraine an "epicentre" of famine, however, he demonstrates that other parts was affected too. What else do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Revert. Paul's edit changes the entire characterization of the event, from removing "man-made", which with respect to the Ukraine includes: confiscation of all grain (the USSR continued to export--whereas in the prior famine the USSR requested and received massive international relief); confiscation of all Ukrainian family foodstores, leaving them with nothing to eat; and, once there was nothing to eat, forcibly preventing Ukrainians (in particular) from leaving the Ukraine famine area. That the drought, et al. was not centered exactly within the frontiers of majority Ukrainian settlement does not justify the meme that "everyone, not just Ukrainians" were affected, as the Ukrainians, by explicit policy, were made to suffer particularly. That is in line with my edit to the lede which indicates that one cannot say for sure how much of the catastrophe in the Ukraine was premeditated (i.e., let's starve them) versus opportunistic (we now have circumstances which facilitate our ability to starve them), neither of those in any way implying not man-made, an edit which I believe Paul Siebert supported. Unfortunate natural catastrophe in which wide areas of the USSR suffered, nothing special about the Ukraine or the fate of the Ukrainians, 'twas tragic but unavoidable, is Soviet historiography, plain and simple. The empire is dead, its legends live on. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The conversation over sources would go much better without editors engaging in inflammatory labeling of accounts which are less than kind regarding the Soviet legacy as anti-Soviet agitprop. Mention something specific you regard as propaganda, demonstrate majority support (outside of nationalist-patriotic Russian historiography) in reputable sources for the version of history which counters the alleged "propaganda," and we can have a constructive conversation. Otherwise such allegations are only acrimonious histrionics. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)Note to admin Re the argument over man made. I believe policy is to say what majority of sources say. I should like those who are arguing for the removal of man made to cite a minimum of ten sources which state unequivocally that the Holodomor was not man made. I am more than happy to produce sources which state it was man made as a direct action of Stalin's policy's and that he used this famine to bludgeon the Ukraine into submission. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that plethora of sources are available that confirm that Holodomor was not designed to exterminate Ukrainians specifically, it would be hard to demonstrate that consensus exists that the opposite was true.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Nobody here argues that the hunger was not at least partially "man made". The problem is that the disagreement over the scale of this man-madeness exists, and that the term is ambiguous (was it intentionally man-made or an unintentional consequences of previous actions?). GreyHood ^Talk 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Better for article discussion, but when you confiscate all the grain and continue exporting, you can contend Stalin needed the money. When you confiscate all the foodstores and foodstuffs a family has in their possession leaving them with nothing, you can contend Stalin had more important mouths to feed. Where I see the problem is that editors who look upon the Soviet legacy more kindly tend to emphasize reasons and justifications (with bad results for the Ukrainians) while editors who look upon the Soviet legacy less kindly tend to judge intent by the inevitable results of deliberate actions. Let's not forget shooting children for stealing a handful of grain if they could find some. As a parallel of this Soviet-legacy-ameliorating logic I would mention the example of Paul Siebert just recently contending that the Soviet goal "in words" to liberate the world from Fascism in the GPW was "more noble" than the real goal of the conscripted Latvian and other Baltic Waffen SS desperately holding out hope for the opportunity to drive both Russian and German invaders from their homelands as they had once before to achieve independence. Editors are completely entitled to buy into historical Soviet-sycophantasies, but that does not qualify for an encyclopedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No soapboxing, Peters, please. And do not misinterpret my words: I compared "declared" goals of Communists and the Latvians, and I never did a comparison you inscribe to me. By implicitly accusing me in comparing apples with oranges you simply insult me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did indeed compare apples and oranges and contend apples were more noble.

• Soviets: Tried to conquer Baltics after WWI, failed. Attempted a putch in Estonia in 1924. Invaded its neutral neighbors, slaughtered and deported their citizens. Following Hitler, "liberation" resulted in more slaughter and deportation of their neutral neighbors' citizens and half a century of totalitarianism as second class inhabitants of their homelands.
• Baltics: Drove out the Bolsheviks once to establish independence. Hoped to do so again. Held out (Latvians) in Courland until the end of the war.

(Paraphrased) "Well, on paper, Stalin was a good guy with bigger goals"... really, I don't know how you write this sort of stuff and keep a straight face. And when you're called on it, you turn that around into an attack on your honor.

To your "Taking into account that plethora of sources are available that confirm that Holodomor was not designed to exterminate Ukrainians specifically, it would be hard to demonstrate that consensus exists that the opposite was true.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)", your logic is no better. By your standard, "designed..." would require that:

• Stalin ruminates over the pesky Ukrainians and that the weather hasn't been that good and yields are down.
• "Вот!! We will blame the society-wrecking Ukrainians for any and all reduced harvests or crop failures."
• "We will confiscate and export grain, no point in the Ukrainians eating away at our balance of trade."
• "Instead of requesting international aid which was given to us so generously in the past, we will suppress evidence of famine."
• "We'll confiscate all their food as well, there are worthier mouths to feed."
• "And once we strip them of their ability to feed and sustain themselves, we'll cordon them off and shoot anyone trying to leave."
• "Oh, and if we leave anything edible behind and someone takes it to eat, shoot them too: men, women, children."
• And it would require that not a single person identifiable with non-Ukrainians be affected by Soviet famine policy.

Your argument that sources with proof of such "design" (explicitly plan, then execute) do not exist is just a wee bit POVish, no? While I might exaggerate only very slightly for rhetorical effect, it is evident to me that your contention belies your inability to accept any narrative which assigns culpability to Stalin and to those carrying out his policies. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Revert - As I mentioned somewhere above, this whole issue of "man-made" and "part of Soviet famine" had already been discussed many many many times before and the general consensus was that "yes, it was man-made, but not necessarily genocide (by strict definition of the term)" and "it was a separate phenomenon though of course there was a wider context". As such I think this latest re-hash of debates which should have already been settled is just nothing but time wasting. Now, Paul didn't initiate this latest round, but he did jump in (as did others) once it began and the three edits under discussion here were made in that vein. They should be reverted until there's serious consensus to change the article in such a way. Volunteer Marek  16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You miss the fact that the statement "part of Soviet famine" was added not by me, it had been there before.

You also totally miss the fact that I replaced the ambiguous term "man made" with more detailed explanations of the reasons, most of them (collectivisation and food requisition) were a directl reference to the policy of the authorities: in other words, that is not a negation of the fact that famine was man-made, but an explanation of concrete steps of concrete authorities that lead to a disaster. I think you will not claim that these facts are incorrect, or that I missed anything. Therefore, the dispute is just about the style. My style is more neutral and encyclopaedic: I present the facts, and I let a reader to draw conclusions by himself. What is wrong with than?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "man-made" may be seen as ambiguous but it is a term used by the sources. It is a succinct term which captures one of the important aspects of the famine - which is precisely why there's so much argument over it here (and why sources refer to it so much). Now, I don't have a problem with your enumeration of specific causes (though proper weight should be given to these - again, according to Graziosi, had Stalin not used the famine for political purposes then "at most" hundreds of thousands would have died rather than millions, so the amount that can be attributed to "exacerbated by poor weather conditions" is a very small fraction of the total) but I don't see a need to remove the "man-made" either. Keep both "man-made" where it was, and enumerate the specific cnditions.

Also, I think removing "Ukrainian" from the designation of the victims is splitting hairs. And the source (EB) specifically refers to the Ukrainians. Of course in the Holodomor (NOT the general Soviet famine) there were some non-Ukrainian victims of starvation. But again, the vast majority of victims were in fact Ukrainian, and Stalin's policy was directed specifically against Ukrainian peasants. Volunteer Marek  17:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the need of "man-made" (used by some sources) if that fact is already clear from the list of the causes?

Re Graziosi, I believe, I included "food requisitions" into the list of the causes.

Usually, the term "Ukrainians" is used by the sources like EB to describe the population of the republic as whole (the Europeans do not separate nationality and citizenship). Therefore, to avoid ambiguity, it would be useful to either omit this word, or to replace it with something that means "population as whole"--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, that simply isn't true. Maybe of today's nation-states where ethnonym and denonym are blurred for reasons of practicality; but at no point do scholars ever refer to "Ukrainians" in the sense of "Soviet citizens residing in the Ukrainian SSR". No one, anywhere, any place, would refer to ethnically Russian, Soviet citizens as "Ukrainians" because they were living in the UkrSSR. Would this make Krushchev 'Ukrainian' by your bizzarro definition?--Львівське (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you imply that Holodomor was directed against the ethnic Ukrainian only?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how it was a tool that Stalin used to deal with the "national question" - here the nation being Ukrainians - then to a significant extent, yes. So not "only" but "mostly". Again, that's the Holodomor, not the other Soviet famines. Volunteer Marek  20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So only Ukrainian rural population suffered during Holodomor?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cut it out. These are not good-faithed questions, Socrates. For starters drop the word "only". Volunteer Marek  21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Revert this. Version by Paul (when the population of the Soviet Union suffered from the great famine caused by the consequences of Soviet agrarian reforms and food requisitions, which were exacerbated by poor weather conditions) tells that collectivization=agrarian reforms. This is not so. Soviet collectivization was a political repression campaign. It also tells that famine was cause by "food requisitions". That's correct, but not only by food requisitions. People died because they were prevented to move by military detachments. All of that was correctly summarized as "man-made famine" in previous version. Biophys (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is also a very good point. Or points. Volunteer Marek  21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is not good: many sources discuss mass killings during, e.g., Chinese "agrarian reforms". That agrarian reforms may lead to outburst of violence is a well known fact, and many serious scholars use exactly this language. In addition, the words "agrarian reform" are linked to the "collectivization" article, so the criticism is totally artificial.

Re military detachments, my version contains more details than the previous one, so to criticise it for providing not all details is simply not honest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I pay attention to such details because this is standard Soviet propaganda version, something that I was taught at school, back in the USSR. They claimed that Soviet collectivization was simply an agrarian reform. Well, even pro-Russian historian Figes was using a different, also Soviet neologism for this: "Veliki perelom" (Great Break (USSR)). Biophys (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your input. I'm a little busy, but I will try to resolve this (just the question of the possible revert of PS's last 3 additions) today. I do want to take a look at past discussions, and see if, in fact, the prior wording had a clear consensus. I will add one note about what I won't do. One editor above directly, and others indirectly, asked me to consider the quality of the arguments, citing WP:VOTE. Actually, that is precisely what I am not allowed to do. As soon as I start deciding which edit is actually more "correct", I immediately become an editor' rather than an admin, and thus can no longer reasonably edit through the protection (or even take future actions like removing the protection). I can consider how well the arguments match policy (as an analogy, if one person were making an argument entirely based on blogs and other SPS, I would discount such an argument), but I can't consider which summary is a more accurate analysis of the available sources. All I want to look for is whether or not the current version is a significant departure from the pre-edit war consensus, and, actually, whether or not the pre-edit war version really had consensus. While I can look by hand through past discussions and the archive, if anyone wants to point me to a specific section or archived section where consensus on one wording or the other was achieved, that would help me. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and just to clarify, I know that some editors have already pointed to specific discussions already, I'm just checking if there are any more. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See here, for example. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the article is fully protected. Regardless of its current state that prevents further damage. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

After review...

I've read through the discussions on this page, along with several in the archives. I've looked at not only the very most recent set of diffs, but also scattered parts of the history going back over 6 months. Most importantly, I re-read the policy on full protection. I want to quote the part on content disputes here (I imagine many of you know it, but I just want to be very clear about why I made the decision I did):

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

So, I have only 2 choices: either keep the current version, or, to avoid "rewarding" edit warring, revert to the pre-dispute version. As near as I can tell, that would be the version from September 17, just before Voyevoda made the first attempt to contextualize Holodomor as a part of the Soviet/Great/USSR famine. Simply reverting the last 3 edits is not an acceptable practice per the protection policy. Looking back at the history of the article, it appears to me that the changes being suggested are for the most part actually new changes. Not new in that they haven't been suggested before, but new in the sense that they are not part of the stable version of the article that has existed for a while (well...semi-stable). It appears that the pre-September 19 version of the lead (at least, the parts that are currently in question) has a fairly strong claim as the previous "consensus" version of the article. As some have noted, consensus can change, and WP:BRD is an acceptable way to measure whether or not such a change has occurred (and, of course, to drive the change through discussion). That being said, the burden falls on those who want to change/show there is a change in consensus, and, if they can't, they should not be edit warring while trying to get that changed consensus. As such, what "should have" happened once the bold changes to the lead were made (removing "man-made", adding the wider Soviet famine, and whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in) and then reverted, is that those seeking to change the article should have come to the talk page and discussed the changes (which was done at least in part above), but not attempted to re-insert the changes until such time as they had proved that they had a new consensus. At some point at least 3-4 days ago, it should have become abundantly clear that there was continued resistance to changes, and that discussion needed to occur rather than a great big insane multi-pronged edit war. I am not willing to reward the edit warring behavior of a minority (and there is no question that the new version is a minority version, given the !votes above) by keeping this article at the current version through the duration of what I expect could be quite a long protection while you work this mess out. As such, I am reverting to the version prior to the start of the edit war, which, of course, is just as much the WP:WRONGVERSION as the current one.

Please note that this is in no way an endorsement of the actual contents of the September 17 version. I haven't read any of the sources. I have only read the article enough to make accurate comparisons between different versions. I read the arguments above for or against the current version, but only analyzed them enough to determine if there were clear policy violations in either the current or old version. It may well be that the version as of the moment of protection is the "better" version. But I can't figure that out as an uninvolved admin, and, to be honest, wouldn't want to even if it were an option.

Finally, it does seem extraordinarily clear to me that you all are not going to solve this here, on this talk page, alone. You're going to need to start an RfC, take the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard, or even start mediation if you think it's a serious enough problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to move further

Below is a last version of the first para:

"The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger) is the name for a famine that took place on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933, when the population of the Soviet Union suffered from the great famine caused by the consequences of Soviet agrarian reforms and food requisitions, which were exacerbated by poor weather conditions. During the famine, which is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine", millions died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine."

Since I never pretended it to be a final version (nothing is final in WP), I expected it to be modified further. I did not participate in this edit war extensively, and it was not my fault that the article has been locked in this state. Let's start from the first sentence. Detailed description of the causes of the famine make it obvious that human factor was decisive, I believe "man-made" is redundant. "Man-made" is too wide (starting from famine as a result of drought caused by deforestation and ending with Irish potato famine), and it is better to explain concrete causes (especially taking into account that they are being extensively discussed in the article). However, I see another problem with this sentence. That Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine is obvious, however, in addition to that, it was an epicenter of the Soviet famine. My verion does not make it clear. How do you propose to reflect this fact? I suggest to polish the first sentence, and then to discuss other aspects.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some suggest that the effect of the famine in Kazakhstan might have been even worse if measured to the population size. As for the Ukrainian famine, it is for sure the most publicized part of the Soviet famine. GreyHood ^Talk 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is definitely a separate story: it caused purely by totally stupid collectivisation policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the situation in different regions was different, but there were common causes and traits and common timeframe, and they are dealt together under the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 concept. GreyHood ^Talk 22:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I also want to emphasize that that Holodomor was a part of the Soviet famine is obvious and 100% sure needs to be mentioned in the lead, if only it is not a POV-pushing essay but a truly encyclopedic article, which means ontologically good-ordered information providing links to the hyperonym or holonym. Arguments given here regarding a "separate phenomenon" might give an impression of some support from sources focusing on Ukrainian famine (a support in approach, but not of the fact), but the sources on the Soviet famine in general do not to deal it as a separate thing and the total figures of the general famine are counted with the lesser famine as a part. GreyHood ^Talk 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given majority of sources emphasize the man made nature of holodomor it has to be mentioned in the lede. In the section above I have asked for sources which state it is not man made, if none are provided then we use what majority of sources use, which is man made. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, nobody argue with the existance of the man-madeness aspect. The problem is that the term is ambiguous and needs clarification, which is given later in the lead and in the article, and that starting with the statement that it was "famine hunger" and continuing with the sentence "Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine" is far from being logical and good style. GreyHood ^Talk 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(re to Paul, edit conflict)

No, this is no good.

Here are the problems, and for now, I'm just going to focus on the first sentence:

when the population of the Soviet Union - ? Why is that in there? As the sources discuss the Holodomor was directed primarily at the Ukrainians. This appears to be an attempt to dilute that fact in a broader "Soviet sea".

suffered from the great famine - Again, Holodomor is distinct from the Soviet famine and the definition of the subject of the article should reflect that. The great famine can be mentioned later in the lede.

Comment - both of these above appear to be an attempt to, once again, rewrite the article to be about the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 (which has its own article) rather than what it's actually suppose to be about. That's why there are these numerous objections to this kind of wording.

caused by the consequences of Soviet agrarian reforms and food requisitions, which were exacerbated by poor weather conditions - just say it was "man-made" because that's what the sources say (including and up to the very specific usage of the term "man-made"). Second I very much agree with Biophys above that collectivization, particularly Soviet collectivization /= agrarian reforms. At best "Soviet collectivization" is an element of the set "agrarian reforms" though honestly, whether policies such as these can even be called "reforms" is open to question. It's as if someone said that "the disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the early 20th century American South occurred as a consequence of a reform of Jim Crow laws" - at best that will get you a confused "huh?". Third, as pointed out above it wasn't just food requisitions but also restrictions on mobility and also political terror. Fourth, as also already pointed out above, "poor weather conditions" had barely anything to do with the Holodomor, and only a little bit more to do with the Soviet famine that also happened. This one is a mix of trying to downplay the "man-made" aspect and at the same time, again, trying to write about the Soviet famine rather than the subject of this article.  Volunteer Marek  21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Marek, a part can have traits distinctive from the whole, but nevertheless it continues to be a part. Any event in encyclopedia is supposed to have the parameters "when" and "where", and to be linked to the larger event it was a part of if there was such one. GreyHood ^Talk 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I fully understand this. But let me emphasize again, that the objection is NOT to mentioning the Soviet famine. It is to the inclusion of the Soviet famine in the definition of this phenomenon. The source(s) I quoted above very explicitly state that it is "necessary" to treat it separately. So we should follow the sources. All of this doesn't mean that we can't mention the Soviet famine somewhere else in the lede. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Which sources? Author, title, page? Quotes?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As already given above: "The adoption of the term Holodomor seems therefore legitimate, as well as necessary (my emphasis, VM), to mark a distinction between the pan-Soviet phenomenon of 1931-1933 and the Ukrainian Famine after the summer of 1932". Volunteer Marek  04:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Would Werth's opinion be of help? (Igny (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Which part specifically are you referring to? Volunteer Marek  04:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Where he discusses Graziosi's attempt to reconcile two schools of thought. (Igny (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Re "As the sources discuss the Holodomor was directed primarily at the Ukrainians." If we remember that Holodomor is the name of the famine that affected Ukrainian population, it definitely affected primarily this population. However, I see no sign of consensus among scholars that "Holodomor was directed primarily at the Ukrainians" Holodomor was not the Holocaust, it was not a specially designed program directed at someone. You probably remember that yesterday you accused me in riding a genocide question? Do you understand now why?

Re "both of these above appear to be an attempt to, once again, rewrite the article to be about the Soviet famine of 1932-1933" Just to put it into a broader historical context. Approximately 2/3 of all deaths during the great famine were Holodomor victims. What is the need to negate the fact that other parts of the USSR were affected too?

Re "just say it was "man-made" because that's what the sources say" Different sources say different things, however, there is a consensus among the scholars (or almost consensus) that the causes of Holodomor were as described by me.

Re "Second I very much agree with Biophys above that collectivization, particularly Soviet collectivization /= agrarian reforms." Of course, that was primarily the agrarian reform, however, if you want a direct link to collectivization, I see no serious problem with that, although the article becomes less readable.

Re ""poor weather conditions" had barely anything to do with the Holodomor, and only a little bit more to do with the Soviet famine that also happened." Firstly, I still don't understand why do you speak about "Soviet famine" and "Holodomor" as two separate things despite numerous evidences of the opposite. Do you question the Wheatcroft's book? In addition, poor weather condition are listed by Wheatcroft, who is a top expert in grain statistics, among the reasons. You should have to have a very serious ground to reject his opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok.

• However, I see no sign of consensus among scholars that "Holodomor was directed primarily at the Ukrainians" Holodomor was not the Holocaust, it was not a specially designed program directed at someone." - but it was directed primarily at the Ukrainians and in fact sources are very specific about it. Graziosi above. And that source is representative of scholarly consensus. Now of course the Holodomor was not the Holocaust - you're trying to set up an unfair comparison here. For one thing, the Holodomor did not have a racial/ethnic cause (only an "effect"). I'm sure that, unlike Hitler and Jews, Stalin had nothing particularly fundamentally against the Ukrainians (I mean, maybe, but whatever such prejudices he might have harbored played very little role here) it's just that the Ukrainians as a group were giving him a lot of trouble. Still, even though it wasn't "ethnically motivated" it was very much "ethnically directed"
• You probably remember that yesterday you accused me in riding a genocide question? Do you understand now why? - yeah, probably I do remember. And I can see why - your argument seems to be that because it wasn't a genocide by the strict definition of this term, we cannot say that it was "directed" at the Ukrainians. But that's nonsense. First, the source does say that it WAS a genocide by the looser definitions of the term. Second, even if it wasn't "genocide" it could still be "directed". In between laying out the premises and coming to the conclusion you're skipping some steps which appear to be your own original research. And, one more time, the sources are specific about it being "directed", "targeted" or something like that. Sources, sources, sources!
• Different sources say different things, however, there is a consensus among the scholars (or almost consensus) that the causes of Holodomor were as described by me - no, most of them say it was "man-made". "As described by me (i.e. you)" is not necessarily in conflict with that (since it implies it). But I would rather go with what the sources say rather than what Paul Siebert describes.
• Of course, that was primarily the agrarian reform, however, if you want a direct link to collectivization, I see no serious problem with that, although the article becomes less readable. - the obvious problem is that the term "agrarian reform" usually refers to something like redistribution of land, though it can be a little more complicated. In fact that's what the Wikipedia article Agrarian reform is about. Describing the seizure of land by the Soviet state and the policy of "work on collective farms or die" (I believe this was the explicit name of the policy) (and let's put aside the fact that even those who joined collective farms starved) as "agrarian reform" really borders on a bad joke. Putting in a direct, but unseen link to the more proper article doesn't solve the problem. Call things what they really are.
• Firstly, I still don't understand why do you speak about "Soviet famine" and "Holodomor" as two separate things despite numerous evidences of the opposite. - because they were separate! as above sources indicate. "Separate" does not mean that they had nothing to do with each other, just that analytically in studying the subject and understanding it, it is useful... nay, in Graziosi's words necessary, to treat them separately. How many times does this have to be said?!?
• In addition, poor weather condition are listed by Wheatcroft, who is a top expert in grain statistics, among the reasons. - I'm guessing this is like your insistence on putting the word "only" in your Socratic questions above. No one said "only" above and no one is saying here that weather had absolutely nothing to do with it. But sources do stress that weather was but a small factor and that - for the Holodomor, not the Soviet famine - purposeful policy instituted by people was the culprit behind the vast majority of deaths.

Think of it this way: Suppose my neighbor doesn't like me. And one hot and dry summer a pile of leaves in my backyard happens to catch on fire. The neighbor sees this, runs over into my backyard with several cans of gasoline and starts pouring it all over the place and so my whole house burns down. Yeah, I guess you could say that my house burned down because of "municipal reforms and provision of accelerant fuel, acerbated by a particularly hot and dry weather". And sensu stricto that'd be true enough. It would also be completely dishonest as to what really happened. Same thing here, which is why peoples is getting annoyed with this continued POV pushing, however "truly" or "logically", it is worded. Volunteer Marek  23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re in Graziosi's words necessary, to treat them separately.. You ignored my earlier question about this source. When Graziosi talks about treating Holodomor separately, does she refer to it as the Ukrainian national tragedy, or the actual famine in UkSSR? I don't have access to the actual source, so my question was just based on the Google snippet. It still deserves an answer. In other words, did she mean to treat the Holodomor separately as a national tragedy of Ukrainians? Or she meant the Holodomor was isolated enough to be a separate event? (Igny (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

I can email you the article if you want. I'm not sure if "Ukrainian national tragedy" is relevant here. The fact that the outcome of the Holodomor was different and that this was due to the "national question" (i.e. related to Ukrainians) is most certainly in the article. The phrase "Ukrainian national tragedy" doesn't appear in the article, I think (I'm using a different computer right now so don't have the pdf on it). I'm not clear as to what the exact distinction between your last two statements is ("Holodomor separately as a national tragedy of Ukrainians" vs. "Holodomor was isolated enough to be a separate event"). Volunteer Marek  01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did not realize the article was on JSTOR. I will read it. (Igny (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

I guess this debate is over now. (Igny (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

How so?  Volunteer Marek  00:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is now frozen in the POV-tagged state until some kind of consensus develops, and I am not going to hold my breath. (Igny (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

The whole point of full protection isn't to preserve the current version indefinitely, but to force people to discuss the issue on talk. Again, if you can't reach consensus among yourselves, use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can easily predict up to 80% of participants of prospective RfC, whose results (or the lack of results) are more or less predictable. I suggest to go to mediation (I support the idea of informal mediation for the beginning).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I can say after my reading is that there is substantial evidence here that you all attempted to resolve the problems on your own and have not been able to achieve consensus, one of the key pre-requisites of mediation. Let me add a new subsection: Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Paul Siebert has recommend that users enter informal mediation (i.e., WP:MEDCAB) to discuss the issue of how the lead should be written. One of the conditions of mediation is that all major editors on the subject voluntarily agree to mediation. To see if this is a plausible step forward, could editors indicate their willingness or unwillingness to enter mediation? For anyone rejecting mediation, could you kindly explain what next step you would like to take instead? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm curious. Agree. Hopefully this process is not completely worthless like RfC. Let's give it a shot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. (Igny (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
• Comment. This is ridiculous. Of course mediation will fail. Do not waste your time and go edit something else. But please do not follow each other in other articles, because this way we will have more and more articles that are permanently protected or under editing restrictions like Mass killings under Communist regimes. Biophys (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe. To some extent Biophys is right. Also I'm quite busy so if this is going to be some kind of useless time sink then "no". I could probably however participate in a limited capacity. It also depends on who else is in there. If the "people on the other side" are Paul, Igny and Greyhood then it might work. On the other hand there are a couple editors (not here presently) whose presence is pretty sure to throw a wrench into any mediation machine. Volunteer Marek  14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. Hope this leads to some progress. GreyHood ^Talk 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Let's see how some of the other disagreements and respective proposals go which Paul Siebert already has under way. Quite frankly, I don't have a tenth of the time Paul appears to have, so let's stick to one major conflict resolution at a time. Националист-патриот ►TALK 01:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not involved in some of these other arguments that everyone else seems to be involved in and personally I don't feel like waiting on others here. Volunteer Marek  02:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can we summarise, please, who concretely agreed to participate in mediation? As far as I understand, only two editors who (conditionally) can be considered as belonging to the other side of opinion spectrum expressed the will to participate. If other users will refuse to do that, we cannot speak about any mediation...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to participate, and think it is very possible to find a consensus. We shouldn't hurry, we should take our time so editing wars can stop. I think some of my earlier posts here show I understand both sides quite well. The fact of the matter is that this event took place almost 100 years ago in an area with virtually no documentation. Unlike other events, it is possible and not forbidden by law to have different opinions on Holodomor. As such, a lot of the information on it really depends from what angle you look at it, and because of that, both views need to be included in the article. --Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC).

Then could you please just write Agreed and sign? That would facilitate the admin's live.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. See above comment. It will work but only if there is a strong representation of both sides, as Hodja Nasreddin said. --Ljudyna

I have opened a new case with MedCab. The instructions say that it takes about 10 minutes for the page to be transcluded by bot; I bring over a link once I get it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The case is open at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor. Mediator Steven Zhang has asked all users to agree to some ground rules, so please go there and sign in if you accept (also, if I have missed anything in my description, or misrepresented something, please let me know). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete lie

Wikipedia must stop spreading capitalist lies and propaganda. The holodomor was not man made; it was a natural famine. Communism has never been involved in a genocide. You are a bunch of capitalists, and capitalists are not to be trusted. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)